SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Wrist Movement Variability Assessment in Individuals with Parkinson's Disease.

Healthcare (Basel) · 2022-08-30

DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10091656PMID: 36141268

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

(1) Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a neurodegenerative disorder represented by the progressive loss of dopamine-producing neurons, it decreases the individual’s motor functions and affects the execution of movements. There is a real need to include quantitative techniques and reliable methods to assess the evolution of PD. (2) Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed the variability of wrist RUD (radial and ulnar deviation) and FE (flexion and extension) movements measured by two pairs of capacitive sensors (PS25454 EPIC). The hypothesis was that PD patients have less variability in wrist movement execution than healthy individuals. The data was collected from 29 participants (age: 62.13 ± 9.7) with PD and 29 healthy individuals (60.70 ± 8). Subjects performed the experimental tasks at normal and fast speeds. Six features that captured the amplitude of the hand movements around two axes were estimated from the collected signals. (3) Results: The movement variability was greater for healthy individuals than for PD patients (p < 0.05). (4) Conclusion: The low variability seen in the PD group may indicate they execute wrist RUD and FE in a more restricted way. The variability analysis proposed here could be used as an indicator of patient progress in therapeutic programs and required changes in medication dosage.

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.