SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Utility of the new Movement Disorder Society clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease applied retrospectively in a large cohort study of recent onset cases.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord · 2017-04-12

DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.04.006PMID: 28431829

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

ObjectiveTo examine the utility of the new Movement Disorder Society (MDS) diagnostic criteria in a large cohort of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.MethodsRecently diagnosed (ResultsIn 2000 cases, 1835 (91.7%) met MDS criteria for PD, either clinically established (n = 1261, 63.1%) or clinically probable (n = 574, 28.7%), leaving 165 (8.3%) not fulfilling criteria. Clinically established cases were significantly more likely to have limb rest tremor (89.3%), a good l-dopa response (79.5%), and olfactory loss (71.1%), than clinically probable cases (60.6%, 44.4%, and 34.5% respectively), but differences between probable PD and 'not PD' cases were less evident. In cases not fulfilling criteria, the mean MDS UPDRS3 score (25.1, SD 13.2) was significantly higher than in probable PD (22.3, SD 12.7, p = 0.016) but not established PD (22.9, SD 12.0, p = 0.066). The l-dopa equivalent daily dose of 341 mg (SD 261) in non-PD cases was significantly higher than in probable PD (250 mg, SD 214, p ConclusionOver 90% of cases clinically diagnosed as early PD fulfilled the MDS criteria for PD. Those not fulfilling criteria may have an atypical parkinsonian disorder or secondary parkinsonism that is not correctly identified by the UK Brain Bank criteria, but possibly by the new criteria.

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.