4.3 Article

Gender Differences in Pain Subtypes among Patients with Parkinson's Disease

期刊

出版社

IMR PRESS
DOI: 10.31083/j.jin2104120

关键词

Parkinson's disease; pain; gender; King's Parkinson's disease Pain Scale

资金

  1. key research and development plan of science and technology department of Jiangxi Province [20202BBGL73104]
  2. science and technology project of Jiangxi provincial health commission [202110017]
  3. science and technology project of Jiangxi administration of traditional Chinese medicine [2020A0310]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study determined the influence of gender on different pain subtypes in patients with PD, finding that female patients had stronger associations with certain PD-related pain subtypes.
Background: To determine the influence of gender on the different pain subtypes experienced by patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Methods: Two hundred patients with PD were recruited for this research. Demographic features for all patients were recorded, as well as clinical data on age, disease duration, levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), and scores for Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-III (UPDRS III), Hoehn-Yahr Scale (H&Y), King's Parkinson's disease Pain Scale (KPPS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), activities of daily living scale (ADL), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scales. Results: Male and female patients showed no significant differences in terms of age, disease duration, LEDD, H&Y stage, and UPDRS III, HAMD, HAMA, PSQI and ADL scores. Women showed significantly lower MMSE than men, but their KPPS scores were higher (both p < 0.05). Female also showed significantly higher scores for chronic, fluctuation-related pain and oro-facial pain and more discoloration;edema/swelling than males (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Female gender was associated with pain in PD patients, with stronger associations for certain subtypes of PD-related pain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据