SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Incidence of Parkinson disease in Wakayama, Japan.

J Epidemiol · 2002-11-01

DOI: 10.2188/jea.12.403PMID: 12462274

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

To estimate an accurate annual incidence of Parkinson disease in Wakayama, a mail survey was conducted in 1998. A questionnaire was delivered to each clinic where Parkinson disease would be potentially diagnosed. The survey was conducted in February 1998 by the Research Committee on Parkinson disease of Wakayama. A total of 792 clinics and 87 hospitals were listed as candidates. Physicians in these 879 medical facilities were asked and instructed to register all newly diagnosed patients with Parkinson disease in 1997 according to the diagnostic criteria proposed by the Japanese Research Committee on Neuro-degenerative Diseases. Of 879 facilities, 873 ones including 81 hospitals replied (response rate: 99%). A total of 229 patients were reported as newly diagnosed cases in 1997. Of these cases, 183 cases were classified as Yahr I to III. The annual incidence rate was 16.9 per 100,000 population (95% confidence interval: 14.5-19.3). Male-to-female ratio was 1:1.4 as a whole, and the dominant age stratum was 70 to 79 years old. When Parkinson disease incidence was observed from northern part of Wakayama to south by district, crude rates (95% CIs) were 15.9(12.9-18.9), 18.1(12.0-24.2), and 19.3(13.4-25.2). After age-adjustment using the Japanese Model Population in 1985, differences of Parkinson disease incidence became attenuated and adjusted rates (95% CIs) turned to 10.8(9.1-12.7), 10.4(8.6-12.2), and 9.9(6.9-12.9), respectively.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.