4.7 Review

Wearables in the home-based assessment of abnormal movements in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review of the literature

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 269, 期 1, 页码 100-110

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00415-020-10350-3

关键词

Parkinson's disease; Body-mounted; Body sensors; Motor symptoms; Dyskinesias; Motion monitoring; Home-based systems; Wireless technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review provides a systematic overview of the current status and challenges of using wearable technology for assessing motor symptoms and fluctuations in PD patients, focusing on aspects such as feasibility, efficacy, and validation methods.
At present, the standard practices for home-based assessments of abnormal movements in Parkinson's disease (PD) are based either on subjective tools or on objective measures that often fail to capture day-to-day fluctuations and long-term information in real-life conditions in a way that patient's compliance and privacy are secured. The employment of wearable technologies in PD represents a great paradigm shift in healthcare remote diagnostics and therapeutics monitoring. However, their applicability in everyday clinical practice seems to be still limited. We carried out a systematic search across the Medline Database. In total, 246 publications, published until 1 June 2020, were identified. Among them, 26 reports met the inclusion criteria and were included in the present review. We focused more on clinically relevant aspects of wearables' application including feasibility and efficacy of the assessment, the number, type and body position of the wearable devices, type of PD motor symptom, environment and duration of assessments and validation methodology. The aim of this review is to provide a systematic overview of the current knowledge and state-of-the-art of the home-based assessment of motor symptoms and fluctuations in PD patients using wearable technology, highlighting current problems and laying foundations for future works.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据