Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) may progressively reduce the upper limb's functionality. Currently, there is no standardized upper limb functional capacity assessment in PD in the rehabilitation field.ObjectiveTo identify specific outcome measurements to assess upper limbs in PD and access functional capacity.MethodsWe systematically reviewed and analyzed the literature in English published from August/2012 to August/2022 according to PRISMA. The following keywords were used in our search: "upper limbs" OR "upper extremity" and "Parkinson's disease." Two researchers searched independently, including studies accordingly to our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Registered at PROSPERO CRD42021254486.ResultsWe found 797 studies, and 50 were included in this review (n = 2.239 participants in H&Y stage 1-4). The most common upper limbs outcome measures found in the studies were: (i) UPDRS-III and MDS-UPDRS to assess the severity and progression of PD motor symptoms (tremor, bradykinesia, and rigidity) (ii) Nine Hole Peg Test and Purdue Pegboard Test to assess manual dexterity; (iii) Spiral test and Funnel test to provoke and assess freezing of upper limbs; (iv) Technology assessment such as wearables sensors, apps, and other device were also found.ConclusionWe found evidence to support upper limb impairments assessments in PD. However, there is still a large shortage of specific tests to assess the functional capacity of the upper limbs. The upper limbs' functional capacity is insufficiently investigated during the clinical and rehabilitation examination due to a lack of specific outcome measures to assess functionality.
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.