SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Wearing-off Identification in Parkinson's Disease: The shapd-woq Study.

Front Neurol · 2020-03-13

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00116PMID: 32231634

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

Objectives: To clarify the frequency of wearing-off phenomenon (WO) and the validity of the Chinese version of the 9-item wearing-off questionnaire (CWOQ-9) in WO identification in this large population. Methods: Parkinson's patients treated with antiparkinsonian medications were consecutively recruited into this observational, cross-sectional investigation. Patients completed the CWOQ-9 prior to the independent clinician assessment. Results: A total of 1,385 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 69.7 ± 9.5 years and the mean disease duration was 5.8 ± 4.7 years. Clinicians identified WO in 763 patients, with an overall prevalence of 55.1%. In patients within 1 year of disease duration, clinicians diagnosed WO in eight patients, with a percentage of 12.9%. With the disease progression, the WO frequency gradually increased to 76.2% in patients with 10-15 years of disease duration. Then, it slowly decreased at a longer disease duration. The occurrence of WO was closely associated with the disease duration, H&Y staging, and levodopa daily dose. CWOQ-9 identified 1,071 patients (1071/1398, 77.33%) that had WO-related symptoms. The mean CWOQ-9 score was 3.4 ± 1.6. CWOQ-9 corresponded with clinician assessments of WO in 734 of 763 cases; clinicians disagreed with the CWOQ-9 considering the presence of WO in 337 of 1,071 cases. The sensitivity and specificity of CWOQ-9 were 96.2 and 45.8%, respectively. Conclusions: WO occurred frequently at the early and middle stage of PD. CWOQ-9 was qualified as a pre-visiting screening tool for clinicians to better identify WO.

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.