SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Gait Analysis in Parkinson's Disease: An Overview of the Most Accurate Markers for Diagnosis and Symptoms Monitoring.

Sensors (Basel) · 2020-06-22

DOI: 10.3390/s20123529PMID: 32580330

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

The aim of this review is to summarize that most relevant technologies used to evaluate gait features and the associated algorithms that have shown promise to aid diagnosis and symptom monitoring in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients. We searched PubMed for studies published between 1 January 2005, and 30 August 2019 on gait analysis in PD. We selected studies that have either used technologies to distinguish PD patients from healthy subjects or stratified PD patients according to motor status or disease stages. Only those studies that reported at least 80% sensitivity and specificity were included. Gait analysis algorithms used for diagnosis showed a balanced accuracy range of 83.5-100%, sensitivity of 83.3-100% and specificity of 82-100%. For motor status discrimination the gait analysis algorithms showed a balanced accuracy range of 90.8-100%, sensitivity of 92.5-100% and specificity of 88-100%. Despite a large number of studies on the topic of objective gait analysis in PD, only a limited number of studies reported algorithms that were accurate enough deemed to be useful for diagnosis and symptoms monitoring. In addition, none of the reported algorithms and technologies has been validated in large scale, independent studies.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.