A digital mobility outcome can change over time without representing a meaningful treatment benefit or reducing trial sample-size requirements. We examined these distinct properties in ambulatory Parkinson disease. We analysed 524 participants from the observational Mobilise-D Clinical Validation Study, with up to five seven-day lower-back sensor assessments over 24 months. The primary outcome was the weekly 90th percentile (P90) of walking speed in bouts longer than 30 s, a measure of the faster end of real-world walking. Mixed models assessed longitudinal change; within-participant models assessed clinical co-change. Sample-size planning was post hoc. The primary outcome declined by − 0.0164 m/s/year (95% CI − 0.0226 to − 0.0103; 2,081 observations). Walking-bout steps and stride length also declined. A one-baseline-SD within-participant speed reduction accompanied 1.10-point and 1.79-point worsening in MDS-UPDRS Parts II and III and a 0.92-point reduction in Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument function. At 24 months, 359 participants had the primary outcome. Missing-not-at-random sensitivity scenarios preserved the decline direction when unobserved values were assumed worse, but its magnitude remained uncertain. Under a 24-month, 80%-power scenario targeting a 30% slope reduction, the primary outcome required approximately 3,450 participants per arm, compared with 2,150 for MDS-UPDRS II and 2,550 for Part III. The examined lower-back sensor-derived outcomes captured small group-level changes in mild-to-moderate ambulatory Parkinson disease. Longitudinal responsiveness and clinical convergence did not establish treatment responsiveness, patient-perceived benefit, or a sample-size advantage over both clinical comparators. The parent Mobilise-D Clinical Validation Study was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12051706) on 10 December 2020.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: