SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Feasibility of virtual low-cost quantitative continuous measurement of movements in the extremities of people with Parkinson's disease.

MethodsX · 2023-06-02

DOI: 10.1016/j.mex.2023.102230PMID: 37383624

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

A low-cost quantitative continuous measurement of movements in the extremities of people with Parkinson's disease, a structured motor assessment administered by a trained examiner to a patient physically present in the same room, utilizes sensors to generate output to facilitate the evaluation of the patient. However, motor assessments with the patient and the examiner in the same room may not be feasible due to distances between the patient and the examiner and the risk of transmission of infections between the patient and the examiner. Therefore, we propose a protocol for the remote assessment by examiners in different locations of both (A) videos of patients recorded during in-person motor assessments and (B) live virtual assessments of patients in different locations from examiners. The proposed procedure provides a framework for providers, investigators, and patients in vastly diverse locations to conduct optimal motor assessments required to develop treatment plans utilizing precision medicine tailored to the specific needs of each individual patient. The proposed protocol generates the foundation for providers to remotely perform structured motor assessments necessary for optimal diagnosis and treatment of people with Parkinson's disease and related conditions.

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.