SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Mechanomyography and acceleration show interlimb asymmetries in Parkinson patients without tremor compared to controls during a unilateral motor task.

Sci Rep · 2021-01-29

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-81672-zPMID: 33514788

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

The mechanical muscular oscillations are rarely the objective of investigations regarding the identification of a biomarker for Parkinson's disease (PD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether or not this specific motor output differs between PD patients and controls. The novelty is that patients without tremor are investigated performing a unilateral isometric motor task. The force of armflexors and the forearm acceleration (ACC) were recorded as well as the mechanomyography of the biceps brachii (MMGbi), brachioradialis (MMGbra) and pectoralis major (MMGpect) muscles using a piezoelectric-sensor-based system during a unilateral motor task at 70% of the MVIC. The frequency, a power-frequency-ratio, the amplitude variation, the slope of amplitudes and their interlimb asymmetries were analysed. The results indicate that the oscillatory behavior of muscular output in PD without tremor deviates from controls in some parameters: Significant differences appeared for the power-frequency-ratio (p = 0.001, r = 0.43) and for the amplitude variation (p = 0.003, r = 0.34) of MMGpect. The interlimb asymmetries differed significantly concerning the power-frequency-ratio of MMGbi (p = 0.013, r = 0.42) and MMGbra (p = 0.048, r = 0.39) as well as regarding the mean frequency (p = 0.004, r = 0.48) and amplitude variation of MMGpect (p = 0.033, r = 0.37). The mean (M) and variation coefficient (CV) of slope of ACC differed significantly (M: p = 0.022, r = 0.33; CV: p = 0.004, r = 0.43). All other parameters showed no significant differences between PD and controls. It remains open, if this altered mechanical muscular output is reproducible and specific for PD.

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.