Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAxial disturbances are the most disabling symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD). Kinect-based objective measures could extract motion characteristics with high reliability and validity.PurposeThe present research aimed to quantify the therapy-response of axial motor symptoms to daily medication regimen and to explore the correlates of the improvement rate (IR) of axial motor symptoms based on a Kinect camera.Materials and methodsWe enrolled 44 patients with PD and 21 healthy controls. All 65 participants performed the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III and the Kinect-based kinematic evaluation to assess arising from a chair, gait, posture, and postural stability before and after medication. Spearman's correlation analysis and multiple linear regression model were performed to explore the relationships between motor feature IR and clinical data.ResultsAll the features arising from a chair (P = 0.001), stride length (P = 0.001), velocity (P P P = 0.001) improved significantly after a daily drug regimen in patients with PD. In addition, the anterior trunk flexion (lumbar level) exhibited significant improvement (P = 0.004). The IR of the axial motor symptoms score was significantly correlated with the IRs of kinematic features for gait velocity, stride length, foot lift height, and sitting speed (r s = 0.345, P = 0.022; r s = 0.382, P = 0.010; r s = 0.314, P = 0.038; r s = 0.518, P P = 0.042).ConclusionAxial symptoms were not completely drug-resistant, and some kinematic features can be improved after the daily medication regimen of patients with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.