TY - JOUR
T1 - Walking on common ground
T2 - a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes
AU - Polhemus, Ashley
AU - Delgado-Ortiz, Laura
AU - Brittain, Gavin
AU - Chynkiamis, Nikolaos
AU - Salis, Francesca
AU - Gaßner, Heiko
AU - Gross, Michaela
AU - Kirk, Cameron
AU - Rossanigo, Rachele
AU - Taraldsen, Kristin
AU - Balta, Diletta
AU - Breuls, Sofie
AU - Buttery, Sara
AU - Cardenas, Gabriela
AU - Endress, Christoph
AU - Gugenhan, Julia
AU - Keogh, Alison
AU - Kluge, Felix
AU - Koch, Sarah
AU - Micó-Amigo, M. Encarna
AU - Nerz, Corinna
AU - Sieber, Chloé
AU - Williams, Parris
AU - Bergquist, Ronny
AU - Bosch de Basea, Magda
AU - Buckley, Ellen
AU - Hansen, Clint
AU - Mikolaizak, A. Stefanie
AU - Schwickert, Lars
AU - Scott, Kirsty
AU - Stallforth, Sabine
AU - van Uem, Janet
AU - Vereijken, Beatrix
AU - Cereatti, Andrea
AU - Demeyer, Heleen
AU - Hopkinson, Nicholas
AU - Maetzler, Walter
AU - Troosters, Thierry
AU - Vogiatzis, Ioannis
AU - Yarnall, Alison
AU - Becker, Clemens
AU - Garcia-Aymerich, Judith
AU - Leocani, Letizia
AU - Mazzà, Claudia
AU - Rochester, Lynn
AU - Sharrack, Basil
AU - Frei, Anja
AU - Puhan, Milo
AU - Mobilise-D
N1 - © 2021. The Author(s).
PY - 2021/10/14
Y1 - 2021/10/14
N2 - Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice.
AB - Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice.
U2 - 10.1038/s41746-021-00513-5
DO - 10.1038/s41746-021-00513-5
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34650191
SN - 2398-6352
VL - 4
JO - npj Digital Medicine
JF - npj Digital Medicine
M1 - 149
ER -