Álvaro Sánchez-Ferro1,2, Morad Elshehabi3,4, Catarina Godinho5,6,7, Dina Salkovic3,4, Markus A Hobert3,4, Josefa Domingos5,7, Janet Mt van Uem3,4, Joaquim J Ferreira5,7,8, Walter Maetzler3,4. 1. HM CINAC, Hospital Universitario HM Puerta del Sur, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain. asferro@mit.edu. 2. Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. asferro@mit.edu. 3. Center for Neurology and Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research (HIH), Department of Neurodegeneration, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 4. DZNE, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Tübingen, Germany. 5. Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Lisbon, Portugal. 6. Center of Interdisciplinary Research Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Superior de Ciências da Saúde Egas Moniz, Monte de Caparica, Portugal. 7. CNS-Campus Neurológico Sénior, Torres Vedras, Portugal. 8. Laboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The past decade has witnessed a highly dynamic and growing expansion of novel methods aimed at improving the assessment of Parkinson's disease with technology (NAM-PD) in laboratory, clinical, and home environments. However, the current state of NAM-PD regarding their maturity, feasibility, and usefulness in assessing the main PD features has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: A systematic review of articles published in the field from 2005 to 2015 was performed. Of 9,503 publications identified in PubMed and the Web of Science, 848 full papers were evaluated, and 588 original articles were assessed to evaluate the technological, demographic, clinimetric, and technology transfer readiness parameters of NAM-PD. RESULTS: Of the studies, 65% included fewer than 30 patients, < 50% employed a standard methodology to validate diagnostic tests, 8% confirmed their results in a different dataset, and 87% occurred in a clinic or lab. The axial features domain was the most frequently studied, followed by bradykinesia. Rigidity and nonmotor domains were rarely investigated. Only 6% of the systems reached a technology level that justified the hope of being included in clinical assessments in a useful time period. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic evaluation provides an overview of the current options for quantitative assessment of PD and what can be expected in the near future. There is a particular need for standardized and collaborative studies to confirm the results of preliminary initiatives, assess domains that are currently underinvestigated, and better validate the existing and upcoming NAM-PD.
BACKGROUND: The past decade has witnessed a highly dynamic and growing expansion of novel methods aimed at improving the assessment of Parkinson's disease with technology (NAM-PD) in laboratory, clinical, and home environments. However, the current state of NAM-PD regarding their maturity, feasibility, and usefulness in assessing the main PD features has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: A systematic review of articles published in the field from 2005 to 2015 was performed. Of 9,503 publications identified in PubMed and the Web of Science, 848 full papers were evaluated, and 588 original articles were assessed to evaluate the technological, demographic, clinimetric, and technology transfer readiness parameters of NAM-PD. RESULTS: Of the studies, 65% included fewer than 30 patients, < 50% employed a standard methodology to validate diagnostic tests, 8% confirmed their results in a different dataset, and 87% occurred in a clinic or lab. The axial features domain was the most frequently studied, followed by bradykinesia. Rigidity and nonmotor domains were rarely investigated. Only 6% of the systems reached a technology level that justified the hope of being included in clinical assessments in a useful time period. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic evaluation provides an overview of the current options for quantitative assessment of PD and what can be expected in the near future. There is a particular need for standardized and collaborative studies to confirm the results of preliminary initiatives, assess domains that are currently underinvestigated, and better validate the existing and upcoming NAM-PD.
Authors: Stefan Williams; Hui Fang; Jane Alty; Rami Qahwaji; Parisa Patel; Christopher D Graham Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Franz Marxreiter; Heiko Gaßner; Olga Borozdina; Jens Barth; Zacharias Kohl; Johannes C M Schlachetzki; Caroline Thun-Hohenstein; Dieter Volc; Bjoern M Eskofier; Jürgen Winkler; Jochen Klucken Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: J A Obeso; M Stamelou; C G Goetz; W Poewe; A E Lang; D Weintraub; D Burn; G M Halliday; E Bezard; S Przedborski; S Lehericy; D J Brooks; J C Rothwell; M Hallett; M R DeLong; C Marras; C M Tanner; G W Ross; J W Langston; C Klein; V Bonifati; J Jankovic; A M Lozano; G Deuschl; H Bergman; E Tolosa; M Rodriguez-Violante; S Fahn; R B Postuma; D Berg; K Marek; D G Standaert; D J Surmeier; C W Olanow; J H Kordower; P Calabresi; A H V Schapira; A J Stoessl Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Hasan Hasan; Maggie Burrows; Dilan S Athauda; Bruce Hellman; Ben James; Thomas Warner; Thomas Foltynie; Gavin Giovannoni; Andrew J Lees; Alastair J Noyce Journal: Mov Disord Clin Pract Date: 2019-06-25
Authors: Mariana H G Monje; Rebecca L M Fuller; Esther Cubo; Tiago A Mestre; Ai Huey Tan; Julie C Stout; Shazia Ali; Lana Chahine; Kathy Dujardin; Cheryl J Fitzer-Attas; Jinyoung Youn; Bastiaan R Bloem; Fay B Horak; Aristide Merola; Ralf Reilmann; Serene S Paul; Earl Ray Dorsey; Walter Maetzler; Alberto J Espay; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Glenn T Stebbins; Álvaro Sánchez-Ferro Journal: Mov Disord Clin Pract Date: 2020-12-28
Authors: L Giancardo; A Sánchez-Ferro; T Arroyo-Gallego; I Butterworth; C S Mendoza; P Montero; M Matarazzo; J A Obeso; M L Gray; R San José Estépar Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 4.379