Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028415›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

A systematic review of real-world gait-related digital mobility outcomes in Parkinson's disease.

Cameron Kirk, Emma Packer, Ashley Polhemus, Mhairi K MacLean, Harry Bailey, Felix Kluge, Heiko Gaßner, Lynn Rochester, Silvia Del Din, Alison J Yarnall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Cameron KirkTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Emma PackerTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Ashley PolhemusEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Mhairi K MacLeanDepartment of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Twente, The Netherlands.
Harry BaileyTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Felix KlugeNovartis Institutes of Biomedical Research, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Heiko GaßnerDepartment of Molecular Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany.
Lynn Rochester *Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Silvia Del Din *Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Alison J Yarnall *Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. alison.yarnall@newcastle.ac.uk.

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 820820
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical assessments of Parkinson's disease (PD) focus on structured motor tasks, potentially underestimating real-world mobility impairment. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs) from wearable devices, offer a promising alternative, but their clinical value remains unclear. This study reviewed the clinical utility of real-world DMOs in PD. Eight databases were searched (2000-2024). Eligibility included reports assessing real-world gait-based DMOs in PD. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by four reviewers. No meta-analysis was performed. Twenty-seven reports met inclusion criteria, reporting 21 DMOs. Walking speed was most common (92%), followed by step length (59%) and stride time (48%). Devices, assessment durations and walking bout definitions varied. DMOs differentiated PD from controls and real-world from supervised conditions. PD Subgroup analyses and associations with motor severity were inconsistent. Real-world DMOs offer valuable insight into PD mobility. Standardised protocols are needed for comparability. Further research should explore predictive utility and complex or composite DMOs. Trial Registration: PROSPERO 2025 CRD42021281213.

Identifiers

PMID41028415
PMCPMC12484654

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.