SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Development and Validation of a New Wearable Mobile Device for the Automated Detection of Resting Tremor in Parkinson's Disease and Essential Tremor.

Diagnostics (Basel) · 2021-01-29

DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11020200PMID: 33573076

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Involuntary tremor at rest is observed in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) or essential tremor (ET). Electromyography (EMG) studies have shown that phase displacement between antagonistic muscles at prevalent tremor frequency can accurately differentiate resting tremor in PD from that detected in ET. Currently, phase evaluation is qualitative in most cases. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a new mobile tool for the automated and quantitative characterization of phase displacement (resting tremor pattern) in ambulatory clinical settings. A new low-cost, wearable mobile device, called µEMG, is described, based on low-end instrumentation amplifiers and simple digital signal processing (DSP) capabilities. Measurements of resting tremor characteristics from this new device were compared with standard EMG. A good level of agreement was found in a sample of 21 subjects (14 PD patients with alternating resting tremor pattern and 7 ET patients with synchronous resting tremor pattern). Our results demonstrate that tremor analysis using µEMG is easy to perform and it can be used in routine clinical practice for the automated quantification of resting tremor patterns. Moreover, the measurement process is handy and operator-independent.

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.