Ségolène De Waele
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Ségolène De Waele has a total of 9 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- David Crosiers
Department of Neurology, Antwerp University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium
3 shared publications Ann Hallemans
Research group MOVANT (Movement Antwerp), Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
1 shared publicationEmke Maréchal
Antwerp University Hospital, Department of Neurology, Antwerp, Belgium
1 shared publication- Esayas Kebede Gudina
Department of Internal Medicine, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia
1 shared publication Joke De Pauw
Department of Rehabilitation Sciences and Physiotherapy/Movant Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Antwerp Antwerp Belgium
1 shared publicationPatrick Cras
Translational Neurosciences, Born-Bunge Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 8 October 2024
- Published by Wiley in Movement Disorders Clinical Practice
- Vol. 11 (12) , 1587-1591
Interdisciplinary Consensus in Evaluating the Severity Subscale of the Original and Revised Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale Through Video‐Based Assessment: An Inter‐Rater Reliability Study
Background: Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) is widely employed for cervical dystonia (CD) evaluation.Objective: To assess the inter‐rater reliability of the severity subscale of the original and revised TWSTRS using video recordings.Methods: Three raters, a PhD student with a nursing degree, a physiotherapist specialized in CD, and a neurologist‐in‐training independently rated all videos. The inter‐rater reliability was assessed with the intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC).Results: The total severity score of both tools demonstrated a good inter‐rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 to 0.88). The inter‐rater reliability of individual sub‐items varied from poor (ICC = 0.29) to excellent (ICC = 0.9).Conclusions: The total severity score of both TWSTRS showed good inter‐rater reliability in a multidisciplinary team, indicating their applicability for online patients’ assessment. We recommend using the total subscale for outcome comparison. Furthermore, there is a need for more accurate definitions of duration factor and shoulder elevation.
- 8 October 2024
- Published by Wiley in Movement Disorders Clinical Practice
- Vol. 11 (12) , 1587-1591
Interdisciplinary Consensus in Evaluating the Severity Subscale of the Original and Revised Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale Through Video‐Based Assessment: An Inter‐Rater Reliability Study
Background: Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) is widely employed for cervical dystonia (CD) evaluation.Objective: To assess the inter‐rater reliability of the severity subscale of the original and revised TWSTRS using video recordings.Methods: Three raters, a PhD student with a nursing degree, a physiotherapist specialized in CD, and a neurologist‐in‐training independently rated all videos. The inter‐rater reliability was assessed with the intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC).Results: The total severity score of both tools demonstrated a good inter‐rater reliability (ICC = 0.87 to 0.88). The inter‐rater reliability of individual sub‐items varied from poor (ICC = 0.29) to excellent (ICC = 0.9).Conclusions: The total severity score of both TWSTRS showed good inter‐rater reliability in a multidisciplinary team, indicating their applicability for online patients’ assessment. We recommend using the total subscale for outcome comparison. Furthermore, there is a need for more accurate definitions of duration factor and shoulder elevation.
- Open Access
- 14 July 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Brain Sciences
- Vol. 12 (7) , 923
Apathy in Parkinson’s Disease: Defining the Park Apathy Subtype
Apathy is a neurobehavioural symptom affecting Parkinson’s disease patients of all disease stages. Apathy seems to be associated with a specific underlying non-motor disease subtype and reflects dysfunction of separate neural networks with distinct neurotransmitter systems. Due to the complicated neuropsychiatric aetiology of apathy, clinical assessment of this invalidating non-motor symptom remains challenging. We aim to summarize the current findings on apathy in Parkinson’s disease and highlight knowledge gaps. We will discuss the prevalence rates across the different disease stages and suggest screening tools for clinically relevant apathetic symptoms. We will approach the fundamental knowledge on the neural networks implicated in apathy in a practical manner and formulate recommendations on patient-tailored treatment. We will discuss the Park apathy phenotype in detail, shedding light on different clinical manifestations and implications for prognosis. With this review, we strive to distil the vast available theoretical knowledge into a clinical and patient-oriented perspective.
- 14 July 2022
- Published by MDPI AG in Brain Sciences
- Vol. 12 (7) , 923
Open AccessApathy in Parkinson’s Disease: Defining the Park Apathy Subtype
Apathy is a neurobehavioural symptom affecting Parkinson’s disease patients of all disease stages. Apathy seems to be associated with a specific underlying non-motor disease subtype and reflects dysfunction of separate neural networks with distinct neurotransmitter systems. Due to the complicated neuropsychiatric aetiology of apathy, clinical assessment of this invalidating non-motor symptom remains challenging. We aim to summarize the current findings on apathy in Parkinson’s disease and highlight knowledge gaps. We will discuss the prevalence rates across the different disease stages and suggest screening tools for clinically relevant apathetic symptoms. We will approach the fundamental knowledge on the neural networks implicated in apathy in a practical manner and formulate recommendations on patient-tailored treatment. We will discuss the Park apathy phenotype in detail, shedding light on different clinical manifestations and implications for prognosis. With this review, we strive to distil the vast available theoretical knowledge into a clinical and patient-oriented perspective.