Objectives To evaluate the concordance between Google Maps  application (GM ) and clinical practice measurements of ambulatory function (e.g., Ambulation Score (AS) and respective Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)) in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Materials and methods This is a cross-sectional multicenter study. AS and EDSS were calculated using GM  and routine clinical methods; the correspondence between the two methods was assessed. A multinomial logistic model is investigated which demographic (age, sex) and clinical features (e.g., disease subtype, fatigue, depression) might have influenced discrepancies between the two methods. Results Two hundred forty-three pwMS were included; discrepancies in AS and in EDDS assessments between GM  and routine clinical methods were found in 81/243 (33.3%) and 74/243 (30.4%) pwMS, respectively. Progressive phenotype (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–7.11, p = 0.03), worse fatigue (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.01–1.06, p = 0.01), and more severe depression (OR = 1.1; 95% CI 1.04–1.17, p = 0.002) were associated with discrepancies between GM  and routine clinical scoring. Conclusion GM  could easily be used in a real-life clinical setting to calculate the AS and the related EDSS scores. GM  should be considered for validation in further clinical studies.

Disability assessment using Google Maps

Iaffaldano, Pietro
;
Viterbo, Rosa;Troiano, Maria;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the concordance between Google Maps  application (GM ) and clinical practice measurements of ambulatory function (e.g., Ambulation Score (AS) and respective Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)) in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). Materials and methods This is a cross-sectional multicenter study. AS and EDSS were calculated using GM  and routine clinical methods; the correspondence between the two methods was assessed. A multinomial logistic model is investigated which demographic (age, sex) and clinical features (e.g., disease subtype, fatigue, depression) might have influenced discrepancies between the two methods. Results Two hundred forty-three pwMS were included; discrepancies in AS and in EDDS assessments between GM  and routine clinical methods were found in 81/243 (33.3%) and 74/243 (30.4%) pwMS, respectively. Progressive phenotype (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–7.11, p = 0.03), worse fatigue (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.01–1.06, p = 0.01), and more severe depression (OR = 1.1; 95% CI 1.04–1.17, p = 0.002) were associated with discrepancies between GM  and routine clinical scoring. Conclusion GM  could easily be used in a real-life clinical setting to calculate the AS and the related EDSS scores. GM  should be considered for validation in further clinical studies.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/369639
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact