Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) may experience falls and/or fractures as a result of disease symptoms. There are limited data available from long-term studies estimating the incidence of falls/fractures in patients with PD. The objective was to compare the incidence rate of falls/fractures in PD patients with non-PD patients in a US population. This was a retrospective study using a US-based claims database (Truven Health MarketScan®) that compared the incidence rate of falls/fractures in PD subjects with non-PD subjects. The study period included the 12 months prior to index date (defined as earliest PD diagnosis [International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 332.0]) and a postindex period to the end of data availability. Fractures were defined by inpatient/outpatient claims as a principal or secondary diagnosis and accompanying procedure codes during the postindex period. Incidence rates and 95% CIs for falls/fractures were calculated as the number of events per 10,000 person-years of follow-up using negative binomial or Poisson regression models. Twenty-eight thousand two hundred and eighty PD subjects were matched to non-PD subjects for the analysis (mean [SD] age, 71.4 [11.8] years; 53% male). A higher incidence rate (adjusted for comorbidities and medications) of all fall/fracture cases and by fall and fracture types was observed for PD subjects versus non-PD subjects; the overall adjusted incidence rate ratio comparing PD to non-PD subjects was 2.05; 95% CI, 1.88-2.24. The incidence rate of falls/fractures was significantly higher in subjects with PD compared with non-PD subjects in a US population.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.