Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Remote assessment of essential tremor (ET) is unverified.Objectives
To compare assigned tremor scores from a remote videotaped research protocol with those from an in-person videotaped research protocol and assess the validity of remote and in-person videotape-based diagnoses when compared against the intake diagnosis (ET vs. control).Methods
Participants with intake diagnoses of ET (11) or controls (15) completed a tremor examination that was filmed both remotely and in person.Results
Agreement between the tremor ratings assigned during remote and in-person videos was substantial (composite κw, 0.67; mean Gwet's AC2 score, 0.92; mean percent agreement, 63.7%). In ET cases with less severe tremor, agreement was lower (p = 0.008). Diagnostic validity was high for both remote and in-person videos compared to the intake diagnosis.Conclusions
Remote video is a reasonable alternative to in-person video for the assessment of tremor severity and assignment of ET diagnoses. However, at low tremor amplitudes, agreement declines.
SUBMITTER: Newton D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8721827 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Newton Danielle D McGurn Margaret M Hernandez Daniella I DI Hernandez Nora C NC Elkurd Mazen M Louis Elan D ED
Movement disorders clinical practice 20211121 1
<h4>Background</h4>Remote assessment of essential tremor (ET) is unverified.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare assigned tremor scores from a remote videotaped research protocol with those from an in-person videotaped research protocol and assess the validity of remote and in-person videotape-based diagnoses when compared against the intake diagnosis (ET vs. control).<h4>Methods</h4>Participants with intake diagnoses of ET (11) or controls (15) completed a tremor examination that was filmed both remot ...[more]