SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparison of Associations between MIND and Mediterranean Diet Scores with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease.

Nutrients · 2022-12-06

DOI: 10.3390/nu14235185PMID: 36501214

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

The Mediterranean (MEDI) and Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diets have been associated with a reduced risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD) diagnosis. However, studies evaluating whether these diets are associated with disease progression in those patients already diagnosed are lacking. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether MIND and MEDI scores were associated with improved patient-reported outcomes. Additionally, we sought to explore which questions on the MIND and MEDI scales were more strongly correlated with PD symptom severity. Data were obtained from the ongoing Modifiable Variables in Parkinsonism study, using patient-reported outcomes in Parkinson’s disease (PRO-PD) as the primary measure for symptom severity, and MIND and MEDI scales for diet score. After adjusting for age, gender, income, and years since diagnosis, for each 1-point increase in the MIND and MEDI scores, PRO-PD scores were 52.9 points lower (95%CI: −66.4, −39.4; p < 0.001) and 25.6 points lower (95%CI: −37.2, −14.0; p < 0.001), respectively (N = 1205). This study suggests MIND and MEDI scores are associated with fewer patient-reported symptoms over time, with each MIND point being twice as strong as a MEDI point in reducing symptom severity. Future dietary intervention trials should consider the MIND diet as a therapeutic strategy for improving long-term PD outcomes.

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.