This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

67/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 67 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

Objective To perform a systematic review of studies using remote physical activity monitoring in neurological diseases, highlighting advances and determining gaps. Methods Studies were systematically identified in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL and SCOPUS from January 2004 to December 2014 that monitored physical activity for ≥24 hours in adults with neurological diseases. Studies that measured only involuntary motor activity (tremor, seizures), energy expenditure or sleep were excluded. Feasibility, findings, and protocols were examined. Results 137 studies met inclusion criteria in multiple sclerosis (MS) (61 studies); stroke (41); Parkinson's Disease (PD) (20); dementia (11); traumatic brain injury (2) and ataxia (1). Physical activity levels measured by remote monitoring are consistently low in people with MS, stroke and dementia, and patterns of physical activity are altered in PD. In MS, decreased ambulatory activity assessed via remote monitoring is associated with greater disability and lower quality of life. In stroke, remote measures of upper limb function and ambulation are associated with functional recovery following rehabilitation and goal-directed interventions. In PD, remote monitoring may help to predict falls. In dementia, remote physical activity measures correlate with disease severity and can detect wandering. Conclusions These studies show that remote physical activity monitoring is feasible in neurological diseases, including in people with moderate to severe neurological disability. Remote monitoring can be a psychometrically sound and responsive way to assess physical activity in neurological disease. Further research is needed to ensure these tools provide meaningful information in the context of specific neurological disorders and patterns of neurological disability.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Block, V. A., Pitsch, E., Tahir, P., Cree, B. A., Allen, D. D., & Gelfand, J. M. (2016). Remote Physical Activity Monitoring in Neurological Disease: A Systematic Review. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154335

Vancouver

Block VA, Pitsch E, Tahir P, Cree BA, Allen DD, Gelfand JM. Remote Physical Activity Monitoring in Neurological Disease: A Systematic Review. PloS one. 2016. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154335. PMID: 27124611.

BibTeX

@article{block2016-27124611,
  author  = {Block, V. A. and Pitsch, E. and Tahir, P. and Cree, B. A. and Allen, D. D. and Gelfand, J. M.},
  title   = {{Remote Physical Activity Monitoring in Neurological Disease: A Systematic Review}},
  journal = {PloS one},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1371/journal.pone.0154335},
  pmid    = {27124611},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154335}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a pooled review. It combines earlier studies, so it is only as good as the studies it pools. Check how many were included, whether they were similar enough to combine, and whether the authors report inconsistency between them.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded high. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. High means the abstract mentions a randomized design, a meta-analysis or a systematic review. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results 137 studies met inclusion criteria in multiple sclerosis (MS) (61 studies); stroke (41); Parkinson's Disease (PD) (20); dementia (11); traumatic brain injury (2) and ataxia (1).
In MS, decreased ambulatory activity assessed via remote monitoring is associated with greater disability and lower quality of life.
In stroke, remote measures of upper limb function and ambulation are associated with functional recovery following rehabilitation and goal-directed interventions.

Study details

Study designsystematic review
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 67/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	12 / 12	A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	1 / 5	2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27124611)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	39 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100.
Total	67 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Clinical safety from nearby years

Also in Clinical safety

96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →