4.4 Article

A questionnaire-based (UM-PDHQ) study of hallucinations in Parkinson's disease

期刊

BMC NEUROLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-8-21

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [5R03MH074059-02, R03 MH074059] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hallucinations occur in 20-40% of PD patients and have been associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes (i.e., nursing home placement, increased mortality). Hallucinations, like other non-motor features of PD, are not well recognized in routine primary/secondary clinical practice. So far, there has been no instrument for uniform characterization of hallucinations in PD. To this end, we developed the University of Miami Parkinson's disease Hallucinations Questionnaire (UM-PDHQ) that allows comprehensive assessment of hallucinations in clinical or research settings. Methods: The UM-PDHQ is composed of 6 quantitative and 14 qualitative items. For our study PD patients of all ages and in all stages of the disease were recruited over an 18-month period. The UPDRS, MMSE, and Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories were used for comparisons. Results and Discussion: Seventy consecutive PD patients were included in the analyses. Thirty-one (44.3%) were classified as hallucinators and 39 as non-hallucinators. No significant group differences were observed in terms of demographics, disease characteristics, stage, education, depressive/anxiety scores or cognitive functioning (MMSE) between hallucinators and non-hallucinators. Single mode hallucinations were reported in 20/31 (visual/14, auditory/4, olfactory/2) whereas multiple modalities were reported in 11/31 patients. The most common hallucinatory experience was a whole person followed by small animals, insects and reptiles. Conclusion: Using the UM-PDHQ, we were able to define the key characteristics of hallucinations in PD in our cohort. Future directions include the validation of the quantitative part of the questionnaire than will serve as a rating scale for severity of hallucinations.

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

4.4
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