Instrumental assessment of Sit-to-Stand in Parkinson's disease: a scoping review.
Marco Trucco, Roberta Ditella, Anastasia Dhimitriadhi and 4 others
PMID 42157069WHAT IT FOUND
Most instrumented sit-to-stand research in Parkinson's uses expensive clinical sensors and the Timed Up and Go test, not standalone sit-to-stand or home smartphones.
Consumer devices cannot yet capture complex movement data unsupervised, so routine home monitoring is not yet validated.
Key findings
01Inertial measurement units are used in 87% of studies, but 78% of those are research-grade kinematic sensors rather than consumer mobile devices.
02The Timed Up and Go test was used in 60% of studies, while standalone sit-to-stand tests accounted for only 22%, meaning most data mixes standing up with walking.
03No included study recruited samples consisting exclusively of patients in advanced disease stages (Hoehn and Yahr 4–5), leaving the highest fall-risk group unmapped.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a scoping review of methods, not a meta-analysis of clinical outcomes; it does not tell you if instrumented sit-to-stand assessment improves patient care. The literature is heavily biased toward middle-stage Parkinson's disease, with no studies exclusively recruiting advanced-stage patients (Hoehn and Yahr 4–5), who are at the highest risk of falls. There is a lack of transparent validation for many commercial sensor algorithms against gold-standard systems, making cross-study comparison difficult. Gray literature such as conference proceedings and unpublished protocols were excluded, potentially omitting emerging technologies or negative findings.
Declared interests
The provided text does not contain a specific funding statement or conflict of interest declaration for the authors of this scoping review.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high feasibility of home monitoring (74% of home studies had high ecological validity) as evidence that consumer devices are ready for clinical use. Most of those feasible home studies still used expensive, research-grade sensors, not the smartphones or smartwatches available to patients.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →