SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Optimizing odor identification testing as quick and accurate diagnostic tool for Parkinson's disease.

Mov Disord · 2016-05-09

DOI: 10.1002/mds.26637PMID: 27159493

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Multicenter Study; review-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate odor identification testing as a quick, cheap, and reliable tool to identify PD.MethodsOdor identification with the 16-item Sniffin' Sticks test (SS-16) was assessed in a total of 646 PD patients and 606 controls from three European centers (A, B, and C), as well as 75 patients with atypical parkinsonism or essential tremor and in a prospective cohort of 24 patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (center A). Reduced odor sets most discriminative for PD were determined in a discovery cohort derived from a random split of PD patients and controls from center A using L1-regularized logistic regression. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed in the rest of the patients/controls as validation cohorts.ResultsOlfactory performance was lower in PD patients compared with controls and non-PD patients in all cohorts (each P 3 years of disease duration were excluded from analysis. All 8 incident PD cases among patients with idiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder were predicted with the SS-16 and the SS-8 (sensitivity, 100%; positive predictive value, 61.5%).ConclusionsOdor identification testing provides excellent diagnostic accuracy in the distinction of PD patients from controls and diagnostic mimics. A reduced set of eight odors could be used as a quick tool in the workup of patients presenting with parkinsonism and for PD risk indication. © 2016 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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.