Back to Search Start Over

Disability assessment using Google Maps

Authors :
Francesca Trojsi
Domenico Ippolito
Paolo Ragonese
Sabrina Esposito
Giacomo Lus
Giovanna Borriello
Gioacchino Tedeschi
Maddalena Sparaco
Gianmarco Abbadessa
Luigi Lavorgna
Francesco Brigo
Elisabetta Signoriello
Marinella Clerico
Pietro Iaffaldano
Roberta Lanzillo
Simona Bonavita
Raffaele Palladino
Rosa Gemma Viterbo
Simone Cepparulo
Marcello Moccia
Maria Troiano
Lavorgna, L.
Iaffaldano, P.
Abbadessa, G.
Lanzillo, R.
Esposito, S.
Ippolito, D.
Sparaco, M.
Cepparulo, S.
Lus, G.
Viterbo, R.
Clerico, M.
Trojsi, F.
Raganose, P.
Borriello, G.
Signoriello, E.
Palladino, R.
Moccia, M.
Brigo, F.
Troiano, M.
Tedeschi, G.
Bonavita, S.
Lavorgna L.
Iaffaldano P.
Abbadessa G.
Lanzillo R.
Esposito S.
Ippolito D.
Sparaco M.
Cepparulo S.
Lus G.
Viterbo R.
Clerico M.
Trojsi F.
Ragonese P.
Borriello G.
Signoriello E.
Palladino R.
Moccia M.
Brigo F.
Troiano M.
Tedeschi G.
Bonavita S.
Source :
Neurological Sciences
Publication Year :
2021

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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10072-021-05389-7.

Details

ISSN :
15903478
Volume :
43
Issue :
2
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical NeurophysiologyReferences
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....040fcf42a31711f53873405758ba9934