2020
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-020-01896-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The relationships between three-axis accelerometer measures of physical activity and motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a single-center pilot study

Abstract: Background Various wearable devices for objectively evaluating motor symptoms of patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) have been developed. Importantly, previous studies have suggested protective effects of physical activity in PD. However, the relationships between conventional clinical ratings for PD and three-axis accelerometer measures of physical activity (e.g., daily physical activity levels [PAL] or metabolic equivalents of task [METs]) are still unclear, particularly for METs. In the c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Commercial devices are widely utilized in PD for quantifying physical activity [ 40–42 ]. Although people with PD have lower levels of physical activity compared to older adults (discriminant validity), construct validity provides contrasting results with either no [ 42 ], moderate [ 43 ] or strong [ 44 ] relationships with clinical scales (e.g., UPDRS, Hoehn and Yahr staging) [ 40 ]. Criterion validity was again limited to laboratory-based tests (e.g., MET) rather than real-world environments [ 44 ], where the use of self-report diaries limit validity assessment due to subjectivity and recall issues [ 42 ].…”
Section: State Of the Art: Where Are We At?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Commercial devices are widely utilized in PD for quantifying physical activity [ 40–42 ]. Although people with PD have lower levels of physical activity compared to older adults (discriminant validity), construct validity provides contrasting results with either no [ 42 ], moderate [ 43 ] or strong [ 44 ] relationships with clinical scales (e.g., UPDRS, Hoehn and Yahr staging) [ 40 ]. Criterion validity was again limited to laboratory-based tests (e.g., MET) rather than real-world environments [ 44 ], where the use of self-report diaries limit validity assessment due to subjectivity and recall issues [ 42 ].…”
Section: State Of the Art: Where Are We At?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies were conducted across 20 countries ( Appendix A ; Table A1 and Table A2 ), the majority were in the United States of America (n = 19) followed by Denmark (n = 10) and Japan (n = 9). Studies included 40 emergency admissions [ 4 , 9 , 10 , 22 , 33 , 46 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ], 18 elective [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 44 , 47 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 ...…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is used to quantify the activity characterized by sedentary behavior (1.0–1.5 METs), light intensity (1.6–2.9 METs), moderate intensity (3–5.9 METs), and vigorous intensity (≥6 METs) [ 13 ]. It has been widely used in several fields, including rehabilitation [ 14 ]. Exercise (Ex) is the value obtained by multiplying MET and the activity time (hour) when the physical activity intensity is 3 METs or more.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%