Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40245393›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2025

The Use of Digital Devices to Monitor Physical Behavior in Motor Neuron Disease: Systematic Review.

Lucy Samantha Musson, Nina Mitic, Victoria Leigh-Valero, Gladys Onambele-Pearson, Liam Knox, Frederik J Steyn, Cory J Holdom, Taylor Jm Dick, Ruben Pa van Eijk, Jordi Wj van Unnik and 8 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

18 authors.

Lucy Samantha Musson *Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1246-2734
Nina Mitic *Department of Life Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5397-0206
Victoria Leigh-ValeroUniversity of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3413-8741
Gladys Onambele-PearsonDepartment of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1466-3265
Liam KnoxSheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2545-1046
Frederik J SteynSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4782-3608
Cory J HoldomAustralian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5972-6437
Taylor Jm DickSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7662-9716
Ruben Pa van EijkDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7132-5967
Jordi Wj van UnnikDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3238-6740
Lianne Cm BotmanDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0539-2464
Emily BeswickAcademic Unit of Neurology, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9843-0778
Deirdre MurrayAcademic Unit of Neurology, School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-4480
Alys GriffithsSheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9388-9168
Christopher McDermottSheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1269-9053
Esther HobsonSheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Division of Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8497-2338
Amina ChaouchManchester Centre of Clinical Neurosciences, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4340-6400
Emma Hodson-ToleDepartment of Life Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1200-1724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMotor neuron disease (MND) is a progressive and incurable neurodegenerative disease. The Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) is the primary clinical tool for assessing disease severity and progression in MND. However, despite its widespread use, it does not adequately capture the extent of physical function decline. There is an urgent need for sensitive measures of disease progression that can be used to robustly evaluate new treatments. Measures of physical function derived from digital devices are beginning to be used to assess disease progression. There is value in establishing a consensus approach to standardizing the use of such devices.

objectiveWe aimed to explore how digital devices are being used to quantify free-living physical behavior in MND. We evaluated the feasibility and assessed the implications for monitoring physical behavior for future clinical trials and clinical practice.

methodsSystematic searches of 4 databases were performed in October 2023 and June 2024. Peer-reviewed English-language articles (including preprints) that examined how people living with MND used digital devices to assess their free-living physical behavior were included. Study reporting quality was assessed using a 22-item checklist (maximum possible score=44 points).

resultsIn total, 12 articles met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. All studies were longitudinal and observational in design, but data collection, analysis, and reporting protocols varied. Quality assessment scores ranged between 19 and 40 points. Sample sizes ranged between 10 and 376 people living with MND at baseline, declining over the course of the study. Most studies used an accelerometer device worn on the wrist, chest, hip, or ankle. Participants were typically asked to continuously wear devices for 1 to 8 days at 1- to 4-month intervals, with studies running for 12 weeks to 24 months. Some studies asked participants to wear the device continuously for the full duration. Studies derived traditional end points focusing on duration, intensity, and frequency of physical activity or nontraditional end points focusing on features of an individual's movement patterns. The correlation coefficients (r) between physical behavior end points and ALSFRS-R ranged from 0.31 to 0.78. Greater monitoring frequencies and improved end point sensitivity were shown to provide smaller sample size requirements and shorter durations for hypothetical clinical trials. People living with MND found using devices acceptable and reported a low burden. Adherence assessed in 8 (67%) studies was good, ranging from approximately 86% to 96%, with differences evident between wear locations. The perspectives of other end users and implications on clinical practice were not explored.

conclusionsRemote monitoring of free-living physical behavior in MND is in its infancy but has the potential to quantify physical function. It is essential to develop a consensus statement, working toward agreed and standardized methods for data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Indexed as

ExerciseMotor Neuron DiseaseWearable Electronic DevicesHumansamyotrophic lateral sclerosisdigital devicesmotor neuron diseasephysical behaviorremote monitoringwearable technology

Identifiers

PMID40245393
PMCPMC12046257

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.