SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Virtual Reality-Based Assessment for Rehabilitation of the Upper Limb in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.

Medicina (Kaunas) · 2024-03-29

DOI: 10.3390/medicina60040555PMID: 38674201

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

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to examine the responsiveness and concurrent validity of a serious game and its correlation between the use of serious games and upper limbs (UL) performance in Parkinson's Disease (PD) patients. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four consecutive upper limbs (14 males, 8 females, age: 55-83 years) of PD patients were assessed. The clinical assessment included: the Box and Block test (BBT), Nine-Hole Peg test (9HPT), and sub-scores of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating-Scale Motor section (UPDRS-M) to assess UL disability. Performance scores obtained in two different tests (Ex. A and Ex. B, respectively, the Trolley test and Mushrooms test) based on leap motion (LM) sensors were used to study the correlations with clinical scores. Results: The subjective fatigue experienced during LM tests was measured by the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE, 0-10); the BBT and 9HPT showed the highest correlation coefficients with UPDRS-M scores (ICCs: -0.652 and 0.712, p p p p p Conclusions: The analysis of the ICC supports the use of Test B to evaluate UL disability and performance in PD patients, while Test A is mostly correlated with disability. Specifically designed serious games on LM can serve as a method of impairment in the PD population.

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.