Mobile systems for monitoring Parkinson's disease

A challenge for the clinical management of Parkinson's disease (PD) is the large within- and between-patient variability in symptom profiles as well as the emergence of motor complications which represent a significant source of disability in patients. This thesis deals with the development and evaluation of methods and systems for supporting the management of PD by using repeated measures, consisting of subjective assessments of symptoms and objective assessments of motor function through fine motor tests (spirography and tapping), collected by means of a telemetry touch screen device. One aim of the thesis was to develop methods for objective quantification and analysis of the severity of motor impairments being represented in spiral drawings and tapping results. This was accomplished by first quantifying the digitized movement data with time series analysis and then using them in data-driven modelling for automating the process of assessment of symptom severity. The objective measures were then analysed with respect to subjective assessments of motor conditions. Another aim was to develop a method for providing comparable information content as clinical rating scales by combining subjective and objective measures into composite scores, using time series analysis and data-driven methods. The scores represent six symptom dimensions and an overall test score for reflecting the global health condition of the patient. In addition, the thesis presents the development of a web-based system for providing a visual representation of symptoms over time allowing clinicians to remotely monitor the symptom profiles of their patients. The quality of the methods was assessed by reporting different metrics of validity, reliability and sensitivity to treatment interventions and natural PD progression over time. Results from two studies demonstrated that the methods developed for the fine motor tests had good metrics indicating that they are appropriate to quantitatively and objectively assess the severity of motor impairments of PD patients. The fine motor tests captured different symptoms; spiral drawing impairment and tapping accuracy related to dyskinesias (involuntary movements) whereas tapping speed related to bradykinesia (slowness of movements). A longitudinal data analysis indicated that the six symptom dimensions and the overall test score contained important elements of information of the clinical scales and can be used to measure effects of PD treatment interventions and disease progression. A usability evaluation of the web-based system showed that the information presented in the system was comparable to qualitative clinical observations and the system was recognized as a tool that will assist in the management of patients.

Validity and responsiveness of at-home touch-screen assessments in advanced Parkinson's disease

The aim of this study was to investigate if a telemetry test battery can be used to measure effects of Parkinson’s disease (PD) treatment intervention and disease progression in patients with fluctuations. Sixty-five patients diagnosed with advanced PD were recruited in an open longitudinal 36-month study; 35 treated with levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) and 30 were candidates for switching from oral PD treatment to LCIG. They utilized a test battery, consisting of self-assessments of symptoms and fine motor tests (tapping and spiral drawings), four times per day in their homes during week-long test periods. The repeated measurements were summarized into an overall test score (OTS) to represent the global condition of the patient during a test period. Clinical assessments included ratings on Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and 39-item PD Questionnaire (PDQ-39) scales. In LCIG-naïve patients, mean OTS compared to baseline was significantly improved from the first test period on LCIG treatment until month 24. In LCIG-non-naïve patients, there were no significant changes in mean OTS until month 36. The OTS correlated adequately with total UPDRS (rho = 0.59) and total PDQ-39 (0.59). Responsiveness measured as effect size was 0.696 and 0.536 for OTS and UPDRS respectively. The trends of the test scores were similar to the trends of clinical rating scores but dropout rate was high. Correlations between OTS and clinical rating scales were adequate indicating that the test battery contains important elements of the information of well-established scales. The responsiveness and reproducibility were better for OTS than for total UPDRS.

A web-based system for visualizing upper limb motor performance of Parkinson’s disease patients

Objective To design, develop and set up a web-based system for enabling graphical visualization of upper limb motor performance (ULMP) of Parkinson’s disease (PD) patients to clinicians. Background Sixty-five patients diagnosed with advanced PD have used a test battery, implemented in a touch-screen handheld computer, in their home environment settings over the course of a 3-year clinical study. The test items consisted of objective measures of ULMP through a set of upper limb motor tests (finger to tapping and spiral drawings). For the tapping tests, patients were asked to perform alternate tapping of two buttons as fast and accurate as possible, first using the right hand and then the left hand. The test duration was 20 seconds. For the spiral drawing test, patients traced a pre-drawn Archimedes spiral using the dominant hand, and the test was repeated 3 times per test occasion. In total, the study database consisted of symptom assessments during 10079 test occasions. Methods Visualization of ULMP The web-based system is used by two neurologists for assessing the performance of PD patients during motor tests collected over the course of the said study. The system employs animations, scatter plots and time series graphs to visualize the ULMP of patients to the neurologists. The performance during spiral tests is depicted by animating the three spiral drawings, allowing the neurologists to observe real-time accelerations or hesitations and sharp changes during the actual drawing process. The tapping performance is visualized by displaying different types of graphs. Information presented included distribution of taps over the two buttons, horizontal tap distance vs. time, vertical tap distance vs. time, and tapping reaction time over the test length. Assessments Different scales are utilized by the neurologists to assess the observed impairments. For the spiral drawing performance, the neurologists rated firstly the ‘impairment’ using a 0 (no impairment) – 10 (extremely severe) scale, secondly three kinematic properties: ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ using a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale, and thirdly the probable ‘cause’ for the said impairment using 3 choices including Tremor, Bradykinesia/Rigidity and Dyskinesia. For the tapping performance, a 0 (normal) – 4 (extremely severe) scale is used for first rating four tapping properties: ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’, ‘arrhythmia’, and then the ‘global tapping severity’ (GTS). To achieve a common basis for assessment, initially one neurologist (DN) performed preliminary ratings by browsing through the database to collect and rate at least 20 samples of each GTS level and at least 33 samples of each ‘cause’ category. These preliminary ratings were then observed by the two neurologists (DN and PG) to be used as templates for rating of tests afterwards. In another track, the system randomly selected one test occasion per patient and visualized its items, that is tapping and spiral drawings, to the two neurologists. Statistical methods Inter-rater agreements were assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. The internal consistency of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were assessed using Cronbach’s α test. One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey multiple comparisons test was used to test if mean scores of properties of tapping and spiral drawing tests were different among GTS and ‘cause’ categories, respectively. Results When rating tapping graphs, inter-rater agreements (Kappa) were as follows: GTS (0.61), ‘tapping speed’ (0.89), ‘accuracy’ (0.66), ‘fatigue’ (0.57) and ‘arrhythmia’ (0.33). The poor inter-rater agreement when assessing “arrhythmia” may be as a result of observation of different things in the graphs, among the two raters. When rating animated spirals, both raters had very good agreement when assessing severity of spiral drawings, that is, ‘impairment’ (0.85) and irregularity (0.72). However, there were poor agreements between the two raters when assessing ‘cause’ (0.38) and time-information properties like ‘drawing speed’ (0.25) and ‘hesitation’ (0.21). Tapping properties, that is ‘tapping speed’, ‘accuracy’, ‘fatigue’ and ‘arrhythmia’ had satisfactory internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.77. In general, the trends of mean scores of tapping properties worsened with increasing levels of GTS. The mean scores of the four properties were significantly different to each other, only at different levels. In contrast from tapping properties, kinematic properties of spirals, that is ‘drawing speed’, ‘irregularity’ and ‘hesitation’ had a questionable consistency among them with a coefficient of 0.66. Bradykinetic spirals were associated with more impaired speed (mean = 83.7 % worse, P < 0.001) and hesitation (mean = 77.8% worse, P < 0.001), compared to dyskinetic spirals. Both these ‘cause’ categories had similar mean scores of ‘impairment’ and ‘irregularity’. Conclusions In contrast from current approaches used in clinical setting for the assessment of PD symptoms, this system enables clinicians to animate easily and realistically the ULMP of patients who at the same time are at their homes. Dynamic access of visualized motor tests may also be useful when observing and evaluating therapy-related complications such as under- and over-medications. In future, we foresee to utilize these manual ratings for developing and validating computer methods for automating the process of assessing ULMP of PD patients.

Emergency department triage scales and their components : a systematic review of the scientific evidence

Emergency department (ED) triage is used to identify patients' level of urgency and treat them based on their triage level. The global advancement of triage scales in the past two decades has generated considerable research on the validity and reliability of these scales. This systematic review aims to investigate the scientific evidence for published ED triage scales. The following questions are addressed: 1. Does assessment of individual vital signs or chief complaints affect mortality during the hospital stay or within 30 days after arrival at the ED? 2. What is the level of agreement between clinicians' triage decisions compared to each other or to a gold standard for each scale (reliability)? 3. How valid is each triage scale in predicting hospitalization and hospital mortality? A systematic search of the international literature published from 1966 through March 31, 2009 explored the British Nursing Index, Business Source Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed. Inclusion was limited to controlled studies of adult patients (≥15 years) visiting EDs for somatic reasons. Outcome variables were death in ED or hospital and need for hospitalization (validity). Methodological quality and clinical relevance of each study were rated as high, medium, or low. The results from the studies that met the inclusion criteria and quality standards were synthesized applying the internationally developed GRADE system. Each conclusion was then assessed as having strong, moderately strong, limited, or insufficient scientific evidence. If studies were not available, this was also noted. We found ED triage scales to be supported, at best, by limited and often insufficient evidence. The ability of the individual vital signs included in the different scales to predict outcome is seldom, if at all, studied in the ED setting. The scientific evidence to assess interrater agreement (reliability) was limited for one triage scale and insufficient or lacking for all other scales. Two of the scales yielded limited scientific evidence, and one scale yielded insufficient evidence, on which to assess the risk of early death or hospitalization in patients assigned to the two lowest triage levels on a 5-level scale (validity).