4.6 Article

Prodromal Parkinson's disease as defined per MDS research criteria in the general elderly community

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 1405-1408

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/mds.26674

关键词

probable prodromal Parkinson's disease; olfactory dysfunction; transcranial sonography (TCS); mild parkinsonian signs (MPS); probability

资金

  1. Innsbruck Medical University [IFTZ 2007152]
  2. Austrian Society of Neurology
  3. Erwin Schrodinger Fellowship in Epidemiology from the Austrian Science Fund [J 3679-B13]
  4. Pustertaler Verein zur Pravention von Herz- und Hirngefaesserkrankungen
  5. Gesundheitsbezirk Bruneck
  6. Assessorat fuer Gesundheit, Province of Bolzano, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundRecently, the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society has defined research criteria for prodromal Parkinson's disease (PD), but to date their predictive value has not yet been tested in population-based cohorts. MethodsWe retrospectively applied these criteria to the longitudinal Bruneck Study cohort aged 55-94 years using recorded data on all included risk and prodromal markers that are quick and easily assessable. ResultsAfter excluding participants with idiopathic PD or secondary parkinsonism, prevalence of probable prodromal PD in the remaining 539 participants was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.2%-3.9%). Of 488 participants followed up over 5 years, 11 developed incident PD. Sensitivity of probable prodromal PD status for incident PD was 54.6% (95% confidence interval, 28.0%-78.8%), specificity was 99.2% (97.8%-99.8%), positive predictive value was 60.0% (31.2%-83.3%), and negative predictive value was 99.0% (97.5%-99.6%). ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the new research criteria for prodromal PD are a promising tool to identify cases of incident PD over 5 years, arguing for their usefulness in defining target populations for disease-prevention trials. (c) 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

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

4.6
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