Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Sialorrhoea in Parkinson's disease (PD) is an often neglected yet key non-motor symptom with impact on patient quality of life. However, previous studies have shown a broad range of prevalence figures. To assess prevalence of drooling in PD and its relationship to quality of life, we performed a retrospective analysis of 728 consecutive PD patients who had a baseline and follow-up assessment as part of the Non-motor International Longitudinal Study (NILS), and for whom drooling presence and severity were available, assessed through the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS). In addition, we analysed the prevalence of associated dysphagia through self-reported outcomes. Quality of life was assessed through the PDQ-8 scale. Baseline (disease duration 5.6 years) prevalence of drooling was 37.2% (score ≥ 1 NMSS question 19), and after 3.27 ± 1.74 years follow-up, this was 40.1% (p = 0.17). The prevalence of drooling increased with age (p < 0.001). The severity of drooling, however, did not change (p = 0.12). While in 456 patients without drooling at baseline, only 16% (n = 73) had dysphagia (question 20 of the NMSS), in those with drooling this was 34.3% (p < 0.001). At follow-up, the number of patients with dysphagia had increased, 20.4% with no drooling had dysphagia, and 43.6% with drooling had dysphagia. Both at baseline and follow-up, drooling severity was significantly positively associated with quality of life (PDQ-8; r = 0.199; p < 0.001). In moderately advanced PD patients, subjective drooling occurs in over one-third of patients and was significantly associated with decreased quality of life. Dysphagia occurred significantly more often in patients with drooling.
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.