BACKGROUND: Remote assessment of essential tremor (ET) is unverified. OBJECTIVES: To compare assigned tremor scores from a remote videotaped research protocol with those from an in-person videotaped research protocol and assess the validity of remote and in-person videotape-based diagnoses when compared against the intake diagnosis (ET vs. control). METHODS: Participants with intake diagnoses of ET (11) or controls (15) completed a tremor examination that was filmed both remotely and in person. RESULTS: Agreement between the tremor ratings assigned during remote and in-person videos was substantial (composite κw, 0.67; mean Gwet's AC2 score, 0.92; mean percent agreement, 63.7%). In ET cases with less severe tremor, agreement was lower (p = 0.008). Diagnostic validity was high for both remote and in-person videos compared to the intake diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Remote video is a reasonable alternative to in-person video for the assessment of tremor severity and assignment of ET diagnoses. However, at low tremor amplitudes, agreement declines.
BACKGROUND: Remote assessment of essential tremor (ET) is unverified. OBJECTIVES: To compare assigned tremor scores from a remote videotaped research protocol with those from an in-person videotaped research protocol and assess the validity of remote and in-person videotape-based diagnoses when compared against the intake diagnosis (ET vs. control). METHODS: Participants with intake diagnoses of ET (11) or controls (15) completed a tremor examination that was filmed both remotely and in person. RESULTS: Agreement between the tremor ratings assigned during remote and in-person videos was substantial (composite κw, 0.67; mean Gwet's AC2 score, 0.92; mean percent agreement, 63.7%). In ET cases with less severe tremor, agreement was lower (p = 0.008). Diagnostic validity was high for both remote and in-person videos compared to the intake diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Remote video is a reasonable alternative to in-person video for the assessment of tremor severity and assignment of ET diagnoses. However, at low tremor amplitudes, agreement declines.
Authors: E Ray Dorsey; Lisa M Deuel; Tiffini S Voss; Kara Finnigan; Benjamin P George; Sheelah Eason; David Miller; Jason I Reminick; Anna Appler; Joyce Polanowicz; Lucy Viti; Sandy Smith; Anthony Joseph; Kevin M Biglan Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2010-08-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Marjolein A van der Marck; Bastiaan R Bloem; George F Borm; Sebastiaan Overeem; Marten Munneke; Mark Guttman Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Lawrence R Wechsler; Jack W Tsao; Steven R Levine; Rebecca J Swain-Eng; Robert J Adams; Bart M Demaerschalk; David C Hess; Elena Moro; Lee H Schwamm; Steve Steffensen; Barney J Stern; Steven J Zuckerman; Pratik Bhattacharya; Larry E Davis; Ilana R Yurkiewicz; Aimee L Alphonso Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Meredith Achey; Jason L Aldred; Noha Aljehani; Bastiaan R Bloem; Kevin M Biglan; Piu Chan; Esther Cubo; E Ray Dorsey; Christopher G Goetz; Mark Guttman; Anhar Hassan; Suketu M Khandhar; Zoltan Mari; Meredith Spindler; Caroline M Tanner; Pieter van den Haak; Richard Walker; Jayne R Wilkinson Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Peter E Lonergan; Samuel L Washington Iii; Linda Branagan; Nathaniel Gleason; Raj S Pruthi; Peter R Carroll; Anobel Y Odisho Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 5.428