SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The Parkinson's Disease Composite Scale Is Adequately Responsive to Acute Levodopa Challenge.

Parkinsons Dis · 2019-09-10

DOI: 10.1155/2019/1412984PMID: 31583072

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

BackgroundThe Parkinson's Disease Composite Scale (PDCS) is a recently developed easy-to-use tool enabling a timely but comprehensive assessment of Parkinson's disease (PD)-related symptoms. Although the PDCS has been extensively validated, its responsiveness to acute levodopa challenge has not been demonstrated yet.ObjectiveTo investigate the correlation between changes in the motor examination part of the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) and the PDCS motor scores during acute levodopa challenge and calculate a cutoff range on the PDCS indicating clinically relevant improvement.MethodsA consecutive series of 100 patients with parkinsonism were assessed using the motor examination sections of the MDS-UPDRS and the PDCS at least 12 hours after the last levodopa dose and after the administration of a single dose of a suprathreshold immediate formulation of levodopa/benserazide reaching the "best ON." Results. There was a high correlation between changes in the MDS-UPDRS and the PDCS motor scores (Spearman's rho = 0.73, p ConclusionsThe PDCS can reliably and adequately respond to an acute levodopa challenge. Any improvements in PDCS motor scores exceeding the 14.6-18.5% threshold could represent a clinically relevant response to levodopa.

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.