SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Feasibility for evaluating motor aspects of Parkinson's disease through video consultations in a resource-limited setting in Southern Brazil.

Arq Neuropsiquiatr · 2023-05-31

DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768665PMID: 37257464

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

BackgroundPerforming motor evaluations using videoconferencing for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is safe and feasible. However, the feasibility of these evaluations is not adequately studied in resource-limited settings.ObjectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of performing motor evaluations for patients with PD in a resource-limited setting.MethodsThe examiners rated motor aspects of parkinsonism of 34 patients with PD from the Brazilian public healthcare system through telemedicine with the patient's own means by using the Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) rating scale. Quality measures of the video meeting were also obtained. The feasibility of rating the motor aspects was the primary outcome whereas the rating of individual motor aspects, video meeting quality and predictors of a complete evaluation served as secondary outcomes.ResultsThe least assessable parameters were freezing of gait (52.9%), gait (70.6%), leg agility, and rest tremor (both 76.5%). Complete MDS-UPDRS part III was possible in 41.2% of patients and 62 out of 374 motor aspects evaluated (16.6%) were missed. Available physical space for a video evaluation was the worst quality measure. Incomplete evaluations were directly associated with disability (p = 0.048, r = 0.34) and inversely with available physical space (p = 0.003, r = 0.55).ConclusionA significant portion of the MDS-UPDRS part III is unable to be performed during telemedicine-based evaluations in a real-life scenario of a resource-limited setting.

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.