SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Predicting Parkinson disease in the community using a nonmotor risk score.

Eur J Epidemiol · 2016-02-22

DOI: 10.1007/s10654-016-0130-1PMID: 26898908

Open accessbrief-report; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

At present, there are no validated methods to identify persons who are at increased risk for Parkinson Disease (PD) from the general population. We investigated the clinical usefulness of a recently proposed non-motor risk score for PD (the PREDICT-PD risk score) in the population-based Rotterdam Study. At baseline (1990), we constructed a weighted risk score based on 10 early nonmotor features and risk factors in 6492 persons free of parkinsonism and dementia. We followed these persons for up to 20 years (median 16.1 years) for the onset of PD until 2011. We studied the association between the PREDICT-PD risk score and incident PD using competing risk regression models with adjustment for age and sex. In addition, we assessed whether the PREDICT-PD risk score improved discrimination (C-statistics) and risk classification (net reclassification improvement) of incident PD beyond age and sex. During follow-up, 110 persons were diagnosed with incident PD. The PREDICT-PD risk score was associated with incident PD (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30; 95 % confidence interval [1.06; 1.59]) and yielded a small, non-significant improvement in overall discrimination (ΔC-statistic = 0.018[-0.005; 0.041]) and risk classification (net reclassification improvement = 0.172[-0.017; 0.360]) of incident PD. In conclusion, the PREDICT-PD risk score only slightly improves long-term prediction of PD in the community.

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.