Search

The finger tapping test (FTT) is a tool to evaluate the motor performance of the hand and fingers and eye-hand coordination with applicability in people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the TappingPro® mobile app and the construct validity between this app and validated clinical scales for motor performance in healthy subjects and pwMS. 42 healthy subjects (mean age 25.05) and 13 pwMS (mean age 51.69, EDSS between 3 and 7.5E) participated. FTT was performed with the TappingPro® mobile app. All participants were examined twice, with a one-week interval between the two appointments. For the analysis of construct validity, the Jamar® hydraulic hand dynamometer, Box and Blocks Test (BBT), and Nine Hole Peg Test (NHPT) were used. The intra-rater reliability showed a good correlation (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC > 0.787) for both upper limbs and both times of FTT for healthy subjects, and an excellent correlation (ICC > 0.956) for upper limbs and both times of FTT for pwMS. The ICC for the inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.869) for the non-dominant upper limb in the FTT 10 s of the healthy subjects, and excellent (ICC > 0.904) for all the other measurements of the healthy subjects and pwMS. However, the Bland–Altman plots showed disagreement between observers and measurements that should be considered in the interpretation of clinical evaluations. The correlation analysis for healthy subjects showed poor associations between all variables, except for the association between hand grip strength and the FTT 60 s in the non-dominant upper limb, which had a moderate coefficient. For pwMS, there were moderate to excellent associations between BBT and the NHPT and FTT for both upper limbs. The correlations between hand grip strength and FFT were poor. This mobile app could be a useful and low-cost assessment tool in pwMS, allowing a simple evaluation and follow-up that has excellent correlation with clinical scales validated in this pathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of neurological disorders is increasing worldwide. In recent decades, the conventional rehabilitation for people with neurological disorders has been often reinforced with the use of technological devices (robots and virtual reality). The aim of this systematic review was to identify the evidence on the economic cost of rehabilitation with robotic and virtual reality devices for people with neurological disorders through a review of the scientific publications over the last 15 years. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on partial economic evaluations (cost description, cost analysis, description of costs and results) and complete (cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefit) studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The main data sources used were PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (WOS). Studies published in English over the last 15 years were considered for inclusion in this review, regardless of the type of neurological disorder. The critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute for economic evaluation and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) were used to analyse the methodological quality of all the included papers. Results: A total of 15 studies were included in this review. Ten papers were focused on robotics and five on virtual reality. Most of the studies were focused on people who experienced a stroke. The robotic device most frequently used in the papers included was InMotion® (Bionik Co., Watertown, MA, USA), and for those focused on virtual reality, all papers included used semi-immersive virtual reality systems, with commercial video game consoles (Nintendo Wii® (Nintendo Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) and Kinect® (Microsoft Inc., Redmond, WA, USA)) being used the most. The included studies mainly presented cost minimization outcomes and a general description of costs per intervention, and there were disparities in terms of population, setting, device, protocol and the economic cost outcomes evaluated. Overall, the methodological quality of the included studies was of a moderate level. Conclusions: There is controversy about using robotics in people with neurological disorders in a rehabilitation context in terms of cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost utility and cost benefits. Semi-immersive virtual reality devices could involve savings (mainly derived from the low prices of the systems analysed and transportation services if they are applied through telerehabilitation programmes) compared to in-clinic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]