SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Olfaction in <i>Parkin</i> carriers in Chinese patients with Parkinson disease.

Brain Behav · 2017-03-28

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.680PMID: 28523222

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

BackgroundOlfactory identification was reported to be better among PD (Parkinson disease) patients with Parkin mutations, but previous studies didn't eliminate the interference of other PD related genes on olfaction, and whether olfaction of Parkin mutations patients was better in Chinese population was still unknown.ObjectiveTo assess olfaction function among PD patients with Parkin mutations in Chinese population.Materials and methodsA total of 226 PD patients with a positive family history or an early-onset age (ResultsThere were 68 patients found having a negative result in PD genetic testing and 43 patients carrying homozygous or compound heterozygous Parkin mutations. Among them, 49 PD panel negative patients and 33 PD-Parkin patients had results of olfactory assessment. PD -Parkin patients performed significantly better on the Sniffin' Sticks tests than panel negative patients (8.0 ± 1.7 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9, p  .001), but still worse compared to healthy controls (9.4 ± 1.5, p = .003). These differences persisted after adjusting for confounders.ConclusionsAmong Chinese population, PD -Parkin patients had relatively preserved olfaction compared to PD panel negative patients after eliminating the interference of other PD related genes, but were still worse than healthy controls.

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.