Premium
A new automated implementation of the Posturo‐Locomotion‐Manual (PLM) method for movement analysis in patients with parkinson’s disease
Author(s) -
Zackrisson T.,
Holmberg B.,
Johnels B.,
Thorlin T.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
acta neurologica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.967
H-Index - 95
eISSN - 1600-0404
pISSN - 0001-6314
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2010.01415.x
Subject(s) - parkinson's disease , test (biology) , simulation , computer science , medicine , disease , biology , paleontology
Zackrisson T, Holmberg B, Johnels B, Thorlin T. A new automated implementation of the Posturo‐Locomotion‐Manual (PLM) method for movement analysis in patients with parkinson’s disease.
Acta Neurol Scand: 2011: 123: 274–279.
© 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Objective – The Posturo‐Locomotion‐Manual (PLM) test, which uses an optoelectronic laboratory system, has here been further developed into an automated, more user‐friendly, standardized tool for movement analysis named the QbTestMotus. This paper compares the accuracy of QbTestMotus to the PLM test, in particular the automated data analysis. Methods – Both QbTestMotus and the PLM recorded data simultaneously from the same 61 patients. The correlation coefficients of movement time (MT), postural time (P), locomotion time (L), and manual time (M) were calculated between the systems. The absolute differences between the result parameters for each patient were also studied. Finally, the differences in MT between the systems were compared with the positive responses in the levodopa (L‐dopa) challenges as measured in the PLM test for 11 patients. Results – The comparisons in all the 61 patients showed high correlation coefficients for all four parameters. The absolute differences between the parameters were small and had small standard deviations, and the decreases in MT because of L‐dopa in the positive L‐dopa responders were much larger than the absolute difference between the systems. Conclusion – The PLM test and QbTestMotus are equivalent along all parameters, thus indicating that the test quality is equivalent between the PLM test and the automated QbTestMotus system.