SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Ophthalmologic problems correlates with cognitive impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Front Neurosci · 2022-10-06

DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2022.928980PMID: 36278010

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

ObjectiveVisual impairment is a common non-motor symptom (NMS) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and its implications for cognitive impairment remain controversial. We wished to survey the prevalence of visual impairment in Chinese Parkinson's patients based on the Visual Impairment in Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (VIPD-Q), identify the pathogens that lead to visual impairment, and develop a predictive model for cognitive impairment risk in Parkinson's based on ophthalmic parameters.MethodsA total of 205 patients with Parkinson's disease and 200 age-matched controls completed the VIPD-Q and underwent neuro-ophthalmologic examinations, including ocular fundus photography and optical coherence tomography. We conducted nomogram analysis and the predictive model was summarized using the multivariate logistic and LASSO regression and verified via bootstrap validation.ResultsOne or more ophthalmologic symptoms were present in 57% of patients with Parkinson's disease, compared with 14% of the controls (χ2-test; p p r = -0.4652, p U-test, p InterpretationThe study findings provide novel mechanistic insights into visual impairment and cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease. The results inform an effective tool for predicting cognitive deterioration in Parkinson's based on ophthalmic parameters.

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.