Walking-related digital mobility outcomes as clinical trial endpoint measures: protocol for a scoping review

Author:

Polhemus Ashley MarieORCID,Bergquist Ronny,Bosch de Basea Magda,Brittain Gavin,Buttery Sara CatherineORCID,Chynkiamis Nikolaos,dalla Costa Gloria,Delgado Ortiz Laura,Demeyer Heleen,Emmert Kirsten,Garcia Aymerich Judith,Gassner Heiko,Hansen Clint,Hopkinson Nicholas,Klucken Jochen,Kluge Felix,Koch Sarah,Leocani Letizia,Maetzler Walter,Micó-Amigo M Encarna,Mikolaizak A Stefanie,Piraino Paolo,Salis Francesca,Schlenstedt ChristianORCID,Schwickert Lars,Scott Kirsty,Sharrack Basil,Taraldsen Kristin,Troosters Thierry,Vereijken Beatrix,Vogiatzis Ioannis,Yarnall Alison,Mazza Claudia,Becker Clemens,Rochester Lynn,Puhan Milo Alan,Frei Anja

Abstract

IntroductionAdvances in wearable sensor technology now enable frequent, objective monitoring of real-world walking. Walking-related digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world walking speed, have the potential to be more sensitive to mobility changes than traditional clinical assessments. However, it is not yet clear which DMOs are most suitable for formal validation. In this review, we will explore the evidence on discriminant ability, construct validity, prognostic value and responsiveness of walking-related DMOs in four disease areas: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and proximal femoral fracture.Methods and analysisArksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for scoping reviews will guide study conduct. We will search seven databases (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, IEEE Digital Library and Cochrane Library) and grey literature for studies which (1) measure differences in DMOs between healthy and pathological walking, (2) assess relationships between DMOs and traditional clinical measures, (3) assess the prognostic value of DMOs and (4) use DMOs as endpoints in interventional clinical trials. Two reviewers will screen each abstract and full-text manuscript according to predefined eligibility criteria. We will then chart extracted data, map the literature, perform a narrative synthesis and identify gaps.Ethics and disseminationAs this review is limited to publicly available materials, it does not require ethical approval. This work is part of Mobilise-D, an Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking which aims to deliver, validate and obtain regulatory approval for DMOs. Results will be shared with the scientific community and general public in cooperation with the Mobilise-D communication team.RegistrationStudy materials and updates will be made available through the Center for Open Science’s OSFRegistry (https://osf.io/k7395).

Funder

Innovative Medicines Initiative

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3