SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The prevalence of freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease and in patients with different disease durations and severities.

Chin Neurosurg J · 2020-05-14

DOI: 10.1186/s41016-020-00197-yPMID: 32922946

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 prevalence rates of freezing of gait (FOG) in Parkinson's disease (PD) vary widely, ranging from 14.0 to 55.1%. Our aim is to calculate the overall prevalence of FOG in all PD patients with different disease durations and severities.MethodsUsing Medline/PubMed/Embase, we carried out a systematic literature search for studies reporting the PD and clinically relevant FOG.ResultsAfter primary screening, a total of 35 studies were identified and further analyzed for inclusion into the analysis, and 29 studies fulfilled the quality criteria and included in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of FOG in PD was 39.9% (95% CI 35.3-44.5%). The FOG identified by the freezing of gait questionnaire item 3 may be more prevalent (43.8%, 95% CI 38.5-49.1%) than the FOG identified by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale item 14 (36.0%, 95% CI 29.0-43.1%). Disease duration and severity are both the clinical features associated with the FOG. The highest FOG prevalence rate in PD patients was seen in patients with disease durations ≥ 10 years, at 70.8%, followed that of PD patients with disease durations ≥ 5 years (53.3%), and PD patients with disease durations ConclusionThis meta-analysis confirms that the prevalence of FOG in PD is considerable, and highlights the need for accurate identification of FOG in PD.

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.