4.6 Article

Functional correlates of mild parkinsonian signs in the community-dwelling elderly: Poor balance and inability to ambulate independently

期刊

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 411-416

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.20735

关键词

elderly; parkinsonisin; community; falls

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG07232] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS42859] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mild tremor, rigidity, and bradykinesia (mild parkinsonian signs, MPS) are commonly detected during the clinical examination of elderly people without known neurological disease. The functional correlates of these incidental findings are not well understood. Balance and ability to ambulate independently are important functions in the elderly. The objective of this study is to examine whether MPS were associated with impaired balance. Balance was assessed using a subjective measure (complaint of poor balance) and a functional measure (the need to use a walker, cane, or wheelchair). Our methods included the neurological evaluation of nondemented older people in Washington Heights-Inwood, NY. Of 2,251 participants, 527 (23.4%) complained of poor balance; 538 (23.9%) required a cane, walker, or wheelchair; and 363 (16.1%) had MPS. In adjusted logistic regression analyses, MPS were associated with a complaint of poor balance (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.0) and the need to use a cane, walker, or wheelchair (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.4-2.6). The need to use a cane, walker, or wheelchair was associated with changes in axial function (OR = 5.5, 95% CI = 2.6-11.6) as well as rigidity (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.07-2.2). Although they are incidental and subtle, signs of bradykinesia, rigidity, and tremor are associated with impaired function. The elderly in whom these signs have been detected are 50% more likely to complain of poor balance and 90% more likely to require a cane, walker, or wheelchair than are their counterparts without these signs. (c) 2005 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