Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundParkinson's disease (PD) is the most common neurodegenerative disorder associated with motor and nonmotor symptoms. Drooling, one of the nonmotor symptoms, can be present in 70-80% of patients with PD. The aim of this paper is to study the characteristics of PD patients with drooling compared to those without in terms of age, gender, disease duration, stage of the disease, swallowing difficulties, and health-related quality of life; methods: a cross-sectional study was conducted. The sample was divided into two groups: PD with drooling (n = 32) and PD without drooling (n = 30). Age, gender, disease duration and Hoehn & Yahr (H & Y) stage, Sialorrhea Clinical Scale for Parkinson's Disease (SCS-PD), the 10-item Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10), and the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39) were compared between groups; Results: 62 individuals with PD, 40 men and 22 women (mean age 73 ± 8 years), were included. Overall, 32 patients reported drooling, and 30 did not exhibit it. The ANCOVA found significant differences between groups for the EAT-10 score (0.83, 95% CI = 5.62-9.03; p = 0.016) and SCS-PD score (1.48, 95% CI = 0.86-6.81; p p > 0.057) and in all subscales. The inclusion of gender, age, disease duration, and H & Y as covariates did not influence the results (all p > 0.05).Conclusionsdrooling is related to swallowing difficulties assessed with EAT-10 but not with health-related quality of life assessed with PDQ-39 in PD patients with drooling compared to PD patients without it. Age, gender, duration of the disease, and the H & Y state of PD patients with and without drooling seem to be similar.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.