SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Diagnostic accuracy of glabellar tap sign for Parkinson's disease.

J Neural Transm (Vienna) · 2021-07-30

DOI: 10.1007/s00702-021-02391-3PMID: 34328563

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Glabellar tap or reflex (GR) is an old bedside clinical test used in the diagnostics of Parkinson's disease (PD), but its diagnostic value is unclear. This study examines the diagnostic validity and reliability of GR in PD in relation to brain dopaminergic activity. GR was performed on 161 patients with PD, 47 patients with essential tremor (ET) and 40 healthy controls immediately prior to dopamine transporter (DAT) [123I]FP-CIT SPECT scanning. The binding ratios were investigated with consideration of the GR result (normal/abnormal). In addition, the consistency of the GR was investigated with 89 patients after a mean follow-up of 2.2 years. PD and ET patients had higher GR scores than healthy controls (p  0.36). Over follow-up, the GR changed from abnormal to normal in 20% of PD patients despite the presence of clinically typical disease. The sensitivity and specificity of GR for differentiating PD from ET were 78.3% and 36.2%, respectively. Although GR has been used by clinicians in the diagnostics of PD, it does not separate PD from ET. It also shows considerable inconsistency over time, and abnormal GR has no relationship with dopamine loss. Its usefulness should be tested for other clinical diagnostic purposes.

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.