SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Prevalence and Clinical Features of FOG in Chinese PD Patients, a Multicenter and Cross-Sectional Clinical Study.

Front Neurol · 2021-03-08

DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.568841PMID: 33763009

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: Freezing of gait (FOG) is generally considered as an independent symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) with a complex pathophysiology. There is a wide range of associated clinical features of FOG reported from different studies without consistent conclusion. Thus, a multicenter, cross-sectional study was designed to investigate the prevalence and clinical features of FOG together with its unique contribution quality of life in Chinese PD patients. Methods: Eight hundred and thirty eight PD patients were consecutively recruited into this study from 12 hospital centers in six provinces in China. Clinical information, including motor and neuropsychological features as well as pharmacological details, was collected. Results: Of 827 PD patients, 245 (29.63%) reported FOG. The prevalence of FOG was strongly correlated with modified H-Y stages and symptomatic duration (p p p p p p p p p p p p = 0.012). Freezers had poorer quality of life than non-freezers and FOG impacted PDQ-8 independently. Conclusion: Nearly one third of the PD patients experienced FOG. Its frequency increased with PD progression and FOG reduced independently the quality of life. Non-tremor dominant, disease progression, and anxiety were risk factors of FOG.

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.