SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Quantifying upper limb motor impairment in people with Parkinson's disease: a physiological profiling approach.

PeerJ · 2021-02-05

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10735PMID: 33604177

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

BackgroundUpper limb motor impairments, such as slowness of movement and difficulties executing sequential tasks, are common in people with Parkinson's disease (PD).ObjectiveTo evaluate the validity of the upper limb Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) as a standard clinical assessment battery in people with PD, by determining whether the tests, which encompass muscle strength, dexterity, arm stability, position sense, skin sensation and bimanual coordination can (a) distinguish people with PD from healthy controls, (b) detect differences in upper limb test domains between "off" and "on" anti-Parkinson medication states and (c) correlate with a validated measure of upper limb function.MethodsThirty-four participants with PD and 68 healthy controls completed the upper limb PPA tests within a single session.ResultsPeople with PD exhibited impaired performance across most test domains. Based on validity, reliability and feasibility, six tests (handgrip strength, finger-press reaction time, 9-hole peg test, bimanual pole test, arm stability, and shirt buttoning) were identified as key tests for the assessment of upper limb function in people with PD.ConclusionsThe upper limb PPA provides a valid, quick and simple means of quantifying specific upper limb impairments in people with PD. These findings indicate clinical assessments should prioritise tests of muscle strength, unilateral movement and dexterity, bimanual coordination, arm stability and functional tasks in people with PD as these domains are the most commonly and significantly impaired.

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.