Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026
Remote Assessment of Mobility in People with Parkinson's Disease: A Feasibility, Safety, Validity, Agreement, and Reliability Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Silva-Batista Carla, Scanlan Kathleen T, Stojak Margaret E, Wilhelm Jennifer L, Carlson-Kuhta Patricia, Liu William, Chen Siting, Horak Fay B, Mancini Martina, King Laurie A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Mobility impairments are a hallmark of Parkinson's disease (PD). Telerehabilitation is becoming more common for people with PD; however, the validity and agreement of telerehabilitation's mobility measurements for people with PD are lacking.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the feasibility, safety, concurrent validity, agreement, and inter-rater reliability between remote and in-person home mobility assessments in people with PD.
METHODS: Sixty-two people with mild-to-moderate PD were assessed ON medication on two different days. On the first day, Rater A conducted home-based in-person mobility assessments that included the Five-Time Sit-to-Stand (5TSTS), Timed-Up-and-Go Test (TUG), and 360-degree Rapid-Turns Test (360°RTT). On the second day, Rater B conducted the same home-based mobility assessments remotely (via videoconferencing). Feasibility and safety were monitored. The concurrent validity and agreement between the remote and in-person mobility assessments were analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman analysis, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: Remote assessments were feasible and safe for all participants. Remote and in-person home mobility assessments, including 5TSTS (r = 0.95, P < 0.0001), TUG (r = 0.91, P < 0.0001), and 360°RTT for the dominant (r = 0.76, P < 0.0001) and non-dominant side (r = 0.77, P < 0.0001), were strongly and significantly correlated. Bland-Altman results showed relatively symmetrical distributions within the limits of agreement for all measurements. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC ≥0.75) for all assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: Home-based remote mobility assessments demonstrated feasibility, safety, validity, agreement, and excellent inter-rater reliability comparable to in-person assessments. Home-based, remote mobility assessments are comparable to in-person home mobility assessments in mild-to-moderate PD and can be implemented into telerehabilitation.
OBJECTIVES: We investigated the feasibility, safety, concurrent validity, agreement, and inter-rater reliability between remote and in-person home mobility assessments in people with PD.
METHODS: Sixty-two people with mild-to-moderate PD were assessed ON medication on two different days. On the first day, Rater A conducted home-based in-person mobility assessments that included the Five-Time Sit-to-Stand (5TSTS), Timed-Up-and-Go Test (TUG), and 360-degree Rapid-Turns Test (360°RTT). On the second day, Rater B conducted the same home-based mobility assessments remotely (via videoconferencing). Feasibility and safety were monitored. The concurrent validity and agreement between the remote and in-person mobility assessments were analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman analysis, respectively. Inter-rater reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
RESULTS: Remote assessments were feasible and safe for all participants. Remote and in-person home mobility assessments, including 5TSTS (r = 0.95, P < 0.0001), TUG (r = 0.91, P < 0.0001), and 360°RTT for the dominant (r = 0.76, P < 0.0001) and non-dominant side (r = 0.77, P < 0.0001), were strongly and significantly correlated. Bland-Altman results showed relatively symmetrical distributions within the limits of agreement for all measurements. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC ≥0.75) for all assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: Home-based remote mobility assessments demonstrated feasibility, safety, validity, agreement, and excellent inter-rater reliability comparable to in-person assessments. Home-based, remote mobility assessments are comparable to in-person home mobility assessments in mild-to-moderate PD and can be implemented into telerehabilitation.