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.

Lavorgna L., Iaffaldano P., Abbadessa G., Lanzillo R., Esposito S., Ippolito D., et al. (2022). Disability assessment using Google Maps. NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 43(2), 1007-1014 [10.1007/s10072-021-05389-7].

Disability assessment using Google Maps

Ragonese P.;
2022-02-01

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.
feb-2022
Lavorgna L., Iaffaldano P., Abbadessa G., Lanzillo R., Esposito S., Ippolito D., et al. (2022). Disability assessment using Google Maps. NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES, 43(2), 1007-1014 [10.1007/s10072-021-05389-7].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s10072-021-05389-7.pdf

Solo gestori archvio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale
Dimensione 638.94 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
638.94 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

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/10447/579613
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 8
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 7
social impact