ArticleNeurological research and practice2025
Consensus on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes for personalized clinical decision support in parkinson's disease.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Value in app store metadata and user reviews: A dual perspective on quality of Parkinson's and dementia apps.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- The future digital outpatient clinic for movement disorders: from technological innovation to ethical and systemic implementation-a position paper.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Spatio-temporal gait signatures across prodromal and early Parkinson's disease in two independent cohorts.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Wearable sensor measurements in relation to clinical characteristics and mortality in patients with Parkinson's disease.Neurological research and practice · 2026Article
- Gait as a vital sign: integrating wearables and AI into vestibular and balance medicine.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDigital mobility outcomes (DMOs) have emerged as novel biomarkers offering objective, quantitative, and examiner-independent outcome measures for clinical studies. Unfortunately, research efforts on DMOs have not yet investigated the domain of clinical utility in Parkinson's disease, i.e. providing evidence of improvements in health outcomes, diagnosis, decision-making, or prevention when compared to e.g. standard-of-care procedures. This manuscript, via a consensus building approach, aims to create a structured conceptual framework to map the knowledge generated by DMOs with clinical domains that could benefit from it.
methodsWe conducted a three-round consensus-building study with 12 experts recruited from the Mobilise-D consortium's Parkinson's Disease Working Group. The experts designed and ranked different aspects of the conceptual framework via a 5-level Likert scale for level of agreement. Consensus for the different points evaluated was based on a double threshold: the simultaneous presence of a high level of agreement had to be accompanied by a low level of disagreement. As secondary objectives, the experts were asked to rate the practical application of DMOs by evaluating the timeline to applicability, the foreseen challenges for their implementation in clinical settings, and their main role in the decision-making process.
resultsA full consensus on the clinical utility framework was achieved after three rounds. The final framework consisted of three main categories (Disease Diagnosis, Patient Evaluation, and Treatment Evaluation) and six underlying domains (Enhancing Diagnostic Procedure, Predicting Risk, Timely Detecting Deterioration, Enhancing Clinical Judgment, Selecting Treatment, and Monitoring Treatment Response). The experts believed in the next 1-5 years DMOs will play a relevant role in clinical decision making, complementing care knowledge with useful digital biomarkers information. However, the main challenge to address is the definition of clear reference value for DMOs interpretability.
conclusionsThis framework provides a structure for subsequent studies to build into by diversifying expert cohorts and expand our findings beyond PD. Additionally, our results support researchers planning future clinical trials where DMOs can play a valuable role for clinical decision support. Ultimately, this is the first step toward developing guidelines to assess DMOs' clinical utility and support their integration into Real World clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.