SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The "gender factor" in wearing-off among patients with Parkinson's disease: a post hoc analysis of DEEP study.

ScientificWorldJournal · 2015-01-20

DOI: 10.1155/2015/787451PMID: 25685848

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Multicenter Study; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundThe early detection of wearing-off in Parkinson disease (DEEP) observational study demonstrated that women with Parkinson's disease (PD) carry an increased risk (80.1%) for wearing-off (WO). This post hoc analysis of DEEP study evaluates gender differences on WO and associated phenomena.MethodsPatients on dopaminergic treatment for ≥ 1 year were included in this multicenter observational cross-sectional study. In a single visit, WO was diagnosed based on neurologist assessment as well as the use of the 19-item wearing-off questionnaire (WOQ-19); WO was defined for scores ≥ 2. Post hoc analyses were conducted to investigate gender difference for demographic and clinical features with respect to WO.ResultsOf 617 patients enrolled, 236 were women and 381 were men. Prevalence of WO was higher among women, according to both neurologists' judgment (61.9% versus 53.8%, P = 0.045) and the WOQ-19 analysis (72.5% versus 64.0%, P = 0.034). In patients with WO (WOQ-19), women experienced ≥ 1 motor symptom in 72.5% versus 64.0% in men and ≥ 1 nonmotor symptom in 44.5% versus 36.7%, in men.ConclusionsOur results suggest WO as more common among women, for both motor and nonmotor symptoms. Prospective studies are warranted to investigate this potential gender-effect.

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.