Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32250314›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Parkinson's disease2020

Systematic Review Looking at the Use of Technology to Measure Free-Living Symptom and Activity Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease in the Home or a Home-like Environment.

Catherine Morgan, Michal Rolinski, Roisin McNaney, Bennet Jones, Lynn Rochester, Walter Maetzler, Ian Craddock, Alan L Whone

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Catherine MorganTranslational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Michal RolinskiTranslational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Roisin McNaneySchool of Computer Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and Engineering Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bennet JonesLibrary and Knowledge Service, Learning and Research, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol National Health Service Trust, Bristol, UK.
Lynn RochesterInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Walter MaetzlerDepartment of Neurology, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.
Ian CraddockSchool of Computer Science, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and Engineering Mathematics, Faculty of Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Alan L WhoneTranslational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
National Health Service · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DE

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 204813/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergence of new technologies measuring outcomes in Parkinson's disease (PD) to complement the existing clinical rating scales has introduced the possibility of measurement occurring in patients' own homes whilst they freely live and carry out normal day-to-day activities.

objectiveThis systematic review seeks to provide an overview of what technology is being used to test which outcomes in PD from free-living participant activity in the setting of the home environment. Additionally, this review seeks to form an impression of the nature of validation and clinimetric testing carried out on the technological device(s) being used.

methodsFive databases (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane and Web of Science) were systematically searched for papers dating from 2000. Study eligibility criteria included: adults with a PD diagnosis; the use of technology; the setting of a home or home-like environment; outcomes measuring any motor and non-motor aspect relevant to PD, as well as activities of daily living; unrestricted/unscripted activities undertaken by participants.

results65 studies were selected for data extraction. There were wide varieties of participant sample sizes (<10 up to hundreds) and study durations (<2 weeks up to a year). The metrics evaluated by technology, largely using inertial measurement units in wearable devices, included gait, tremor, physical activity, bradykinesia, dyskinesia and motor fluctuations, posture, falls, typing, sleep and activities of daily living.

conclusionsHome-based free-living testing in PD is being conducted by multiple groups with diverse approaches, focussing mainly on motor symptoms and sleep.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingMobile ApplicationsMonitoring, AmbulatoryPatient Outcome AssessmentPsychometricsTelemedicineWearable Electronic DevicesHumansParkinson Diseasealgorithmsbasal ganglia diseasesParkinsonian disorderspatient outcome assessmenttechnology

Identifiers

PMID32250314
PMCPMC7242826
OpenAlexW3015178098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.