SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Parkinson's disease case ascertainment in a large prospective cohort.

PLoS One · 2021-05-19

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251852PMID: 34010345

Open accessResearch Support, N.I.H., Intramural; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc0

BackgroundIn epidemiologic studies where physician-based case adjudication is not feasible, Parkinson's disease (PD) case ascertainment is often limited to self-reports which may not be accurate. We evaluated strategies to identify PD cases in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS).MethodsDoctor-diagnosed PD was self-reported on all cohort-wide surveys; potential cases were also identified from death certificates. Follow-up surveys asked about PD-related motor and non-motor symptoms. For PD confirmation, we collected additional diagnosis, symptom, and treatment data from 510 potential PD cases or their proxy (65% of those contacted) in a supplemental screener and obtained medical records for a subset (n = 65). We classified PD cases using established criteria and screener data.ResultsOf 510 potential PD cases, 75% were considered "probable" or "possible"; this proportion increased among participants diagnosed by a specialist (81.2%), taking PD medication (85.2%), or reporting ≥5 motor symptoms (86.8%) in a regular AHS survey. Of those with medical records, 93% (57 of 61) of probable or possible PD was confirmed. Never-smoking and non-motor and motor symptoms reported in prior AHS surveys were more common with probable/possible PD than unconfirmed PD.ConclusionIn this retrospective PD case ascertainment effort, we found that PD self-report with information on motor symptoms or medications may be a reasonable alternative for identifying PD cases when physician exam is not feasible. Because of intervening mortality, screeners could not be obtained from about one-third of those contacted. Thus, findings warrant replication.

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.