NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness and macular thickness in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.MethodsThe present study is a comparative cross-sectional, hospital-based study. A total number of 64 PD patients and 64 controls were recruited. Candidates that fulfilled the criteria with normal ocular examinations were undergone optical coherent tomography (OCT) examinations of the right eye. RNFL and macular thickness were evaluated.ResultsThere was a statistically significant reduction in RNFL thickness in average (adjusted mean 84.32 vs 95.93, p ≤ 0.001), superior (adjusted mean 105.15 vs 118.13, p ≤ 0.010), and inferior (adjusted mean 104.95 vs 126.55, p ≤ 0.001) PD group compared to the control group. The macula thickness also was significantly reduced in average (adjusted mean 266.51 vs 281.34, p = 0.015), central (adjusted mean 236.37 vs 255.55, p = 0.001), outer superior (adjusted mean 269.16 vs 278.19, p = 0.014), outer inferior (adjusted mean 256.34 vs 272.24, p ≤ 0.001), and outer nasal (adjusted mean 287.64 vs 302.84, p = 0.001) PD group compared to the control group. There was a significant positive correlation between RNFL thickness and visual acuity among PD patients in the inferior segment with p = 0.020 and nasal segment with p ≤ 0.001. There was also a significant positive correlation between macular thickness and visual acuity among PD patients in the inner temporal segment with p = 0.006, outer superior segment with p = 0.003, and outer temporal segment with p ≤ 0.001.ConclusionThe mean of the average, superior, and inferior RNFL thickness was significantly lower in the PD group compared to the control. The mean of the average, central, outer superior, outer inferior, and outer nasal macular thickness was significantly lower in the PD group compared to the control.
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.