Disability assessment using Google Maps.
Ambulatory disorders
Digital health
Google Maps
e-Health
Journal
Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology
ISSN: 1590-3478
Titre abrégé: Neurol Sci
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 100959175
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2022
Feb 2022
Historique:
received:
25
01
2021
accepted:
07
06
2021
pubmed:
19
6
2021
medline:
28
1
2022
entrez:
18
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the concordance between Google Maps® application (GM®) and clinical practice measurements of ambulatory function (e.g., Ambulation Score (AS) and respective Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)) in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). This is a cross-sectional multicenter study. AS and EDSS were calculated using GM® and routine clinical methods; the correspondence between the two methods was assessed. A multinomial logistic model is investigated which demographic (age, sex) and clinical features (e.g., disease subtype, fatigue, depression) might have influenced discrepancies between the two methods. Two hundred forty-three pwMS were included; discrepancies in AS and in EDDS assessments between GM® and routine clinical methods were found in 81/243 (33.3%) and 74/243 (30.4%) pwMS, respectively. Progressive phenotype (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-7.11, p = 0.03), worse fatigue (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p = 0.01), and more severe depression (OR = 1.1; 95% CI 1.04-1.17, p = 0.002) were associated with discrepancies between GM® and routine clinical scoring. GM® could easily be used in a real-life clinical setting to calculate the AS and the related EDSS scores. GM® should be considered for validation in further clinical studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34142263
doi: 10.1007/s10072-021-05389-7
pii: 10.1007/s10072-021-05389-7
pmc: PMC8211455
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1007-1014Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia.
Références
Chatterji P, Li Y (2021) Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on outpatient providers in the United States. Med Care 59(1):58–61
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001448
Moccia M, Lanzillo R, Brescia Morra V et al (2020) Assessing disability and relapses in multiple sclerosis on tele-neurology. Neurol Sci 41:1369–1371
doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04470-x
Bombaci A, Abbadessa G, Trojsi F et al (2021) Telemedicine for management of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis through COVID-19 tail. Neurol Sci 42(1):9–13
doi: 10.1007/s10072-020-04783-x
Bove R, Bevan C, Crabtree E, Zhao C, Gomez R, Garcha P, Morrissey J, Dierkhising J, Green AJ, Hauser SL, Cree BA, Wallin MT, Gelfand JM (2019) Toward a low-cost, in-home, telemedicine-enabled assessment of disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 25(11):1526–1534
doi: 10.1177/1352458518793527
Abbadessa G, Lavorgna L, Miele G et al (2021) Assessment of multiple sclerosis disability progression using a wearable biosensor: a pilot study. J Clin Med 10(6):1160
doi: 10.3390/jcm10061160
Kurtzke JF (1983) Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 33(11):1444–1452
doi: 10.1212/WNL.33.11.1444
Kruidenier LM, Nicolai SPA, Willidgendael EM et al (2009) Functional claudication distance: a reliable and valid measurement to assess functional limitation in patients intermittent claudication. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2(9):9
doi: 10.1186/1471-2261-9-9
Sharrack B, Hughes RCA (1997) Reliability of distance estimation by doctors and patients: cross sectional study. BMJ 315:1652–1654
doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7123.1652
Hohart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R et al (2001) The multiple sclerosis impact scale: a new patients based outcome measures. Brain 124:962–973
doi: 10.1093/brain/124.5.962
PiriÇinar B, GüvenYorgun K (2018) What we learned from the history of multiple sclerosis measurement: expanded disability status scale. Arch Neuropsychiatry 55(Supplement 1):69–75
Sparaco M, Lavorgna L, Conforti R et al (2018) The role of wearable devices in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Int 2018:7627643
pubmed: 30405913
pmcid: 6199873
Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J et al (1989) The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol 46:1121–1123
doi: 10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022
Hind D, Kaklamanou D, Beever D et al (2016) The assessment of depression in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of psychometric validation studies. BMC Psychiatry 16:278
doi: 10.1186/s12888-016-0931-5
Goldman MD, Motl RW, Rudick RA (2010) Possible clinical outcome measures for clinical trials in patients with multiple sclerosis. Ther Adv Neurol Disord 3:229–239
doi: 10.1177/1756285610374117
Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Adeline P (2003) Early clinical predictors and progression of irreversible disability in multiple sclerosis: an amnesic process. Brain 126:770–782
doi: 10.1093/brain/awg081
Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Moreau T, Adeleine P (2000) Relapses and progression of disability in multiple sclerosis. N Eng J Med 343:1430–1438
doi: 10.1056/NEJM200011163432001
Kimmelman J, Mogil JS, Dirnagl U (2014) Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. Plos Biol 12(5):e1001863
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001863
Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, Lancaster GA (2010) What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol 10:67
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-67
Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15(2):155–163
doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Mukaka MM (2012) A guide to appropriate use of Correlation coefficient in medical research MM Mukaka. Malawi Med J 24(3):69–71
pubmed: 23638278
pmcid: 3576830
Mandrekar JN (2011) Measures of interrater agreement. J Thorac Oncol 6(1):6–7
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318200f983
Dong Y, Peng CY (2013) Principled missing data methods for researchers. Springerplus 2(1):222. Published 2013 May 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-222 .
Herbolsheimer F, Riepe M, Peter R (2018) Cognitive function and the agreement between self-reported and accelerometer-accessed physical activity. BMC Geriatr 18:56
doi: 10.1186/s12877-018-0747-x
Kalron A, Aloni R (2018) Contrasting relationship between depression, quantitative gait characteristics and self-report walking difficulties in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 19:1–5
doi: 10.1016/j.msard.2017.10.012
Dalgas U, Langeskov-Christensen M, Skjerbæk AG (2018) Is the impact of fatigue related to walking capacity and perceived ability in persons with multiple sclerosis? A multicenter study. J Neurol Sci 387:179–186
doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2018.02.026
Berger W, Payne MWC, Morrow SA (2017) Self reported maximum walking distance in persons with MS may affect the EDSS. Neurol Sci 379:77–80
doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2017.05.035
Neil BA, Kenneth EG, Darryl GT et al (2000) Self-Reported walking ability predicts functional mobility performance in frail older adults. JAGS 48:1408–1413
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb02630.x
Giantomaso T, Makowsky L, Ashworth N et al (2003) The validity of patient and physician estimate of walking distance. Clin Rehabil 17:394–401
doi: 10.1191/0269215503cr626oa
Minden SL, Frankel D, Hadden L et al (2004) Disability in elderly people with multiple sclerosis: an analysis of baseline data from the Sonya Slifka longitudinal multiple sclerosis study. Neurorehabilitation 19(1):55–67
doi: 10.3233/NRE-2004-19107
Skjerbæk AG, Boesen F, Petersen T, Rasmussen PV, Stenager E, Nørgaard M, Feys P, Kjeldgaard-Jørgensen ML, Hvid LG, Dalgas U. (2019) Can we trust self-reported walking distance when determining EDSS scores in patients with multiple sclerosis? The Danish MS hospitals rehabilitation study. Mult Scler. 25(12):1653-1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458518795416
doi: 10.1177/1352458518795416
pubmed: 30124106