Table 3 Types of Evidence provided in the EEL-III
Authors study | Reference | Aim | Target | Clinical utility evidence provided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
D.A. Heldman, et al. | Clinical decision support | Evaluating the impact of sensor derived motor symptom severity information on clinical decision | Qualitative description of sensor contribution in the clinical decision. Number of patients influenced. Changes in sensor-derived clinical scores before-after treatment modification | |
A. Hadley et al. | Clinical decision support | Evaluating the impact of sensor derived motor symptom severity information on clinical decision and treatment evaluation | Qualitative description of sensor impact in the clinical decision. Significant differences, determined by statistical test p-values, in sensor measures before/after treatment change. | |
S. Isaacson et al. | Clinical decision support | Evaluating through a randomize intervention study if sensor-based information improves motor symptom management | Least Square mean improvement in clinical score UPDRS II and III, linked to p-value. Mean medication change and mean number of dosage change between sensor -supported clinical decision group and standard clinical decision group. | |
A. Santiago et al. | Clinical decision support | Investigating the impact of continuous recording from PKG on clinical decisions. | Qualitative evaluation of sensor contribution in the clinical decision. Number of patients influenced. | |
P. Farzanehfar et al. | Clinical decision support | Evaluating the efficacy of detecting wearing off through sensor data and the clinical impact on patients | Significant differences, determined by statistical test p-values, in clinical score total UPDRS and III between sensor -supported clinical decision group and standard clinical decision group. | |
R. Powers et al | Clinical decision support | Analyzing the impact of sensor derived motor symptom severity information on clinical decision | Qualitative evaluation of sensor contribution in the clinical decision. Number of patients influenced. Accuracy of decision based on sensor alone vs standard procedure. | |
V. De Cock et al. | Personalized treatment | Evaluating the effect of an individualized gait training treatment based on sensor derived parameters | Significant differences, determined by statistical test p-values, in clinical scores before/after intervention. | |
T. Chomiak et al. | Personalized treatment | Evaluating the effect of an individualized gait training treatment based on sensor derived parameters | Significant differences, determined by statistical test p-values, in sensor-derived features across intervention and control group. | |
H. Gaßner et al | Personalized treatment | Evaluating the effect of an individualized gait training treatment based on sensor derived parameters | Significant differences, determined by statistical test p-values, in sensor-derived features, clinical scores and patient-defined motor tasks before/after intervention. |
