Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundNon-visual hallucinations in Parkinson's disease (PD) can be prevalent and distressing. Most existing research has however, focused on visual hallucinations as well as related risk factors. The current study thus conducted a systematic review to collate existing evidence on non-visual hallucinations in PD, focusing on their prevalence, phenomenology, and clinical-cognitive correlates.MethodsNinety-one relevant studies were included from a systematic search across PsycINFO APA, PubMed, and Web of Science, for peer-reviewed publications in the English language, from 1970 to the present. These comprised a mix of case (30 studies; n = 56) and group design (62 studies; n = 7346) studies, divided into three somewhat overlapping collections to address our three research foci.ResultsPrevalence estimates for hallucinations were: auditory 1.5-72.0%, olfactory 1.6-21.0%, somatic-tactile 0.4-22.5%, gustatory 1.0-15.0%, and sensed presence 0.9-73.3%. Phenomenological inquiries revealed descriptions of vivid, consuming events replete with elaborate detail, adversely affecting PD patients in different ways. Overt experiences of multisensory hallucinations were also highly variable (0.4-80%) but exceedingly common, reported by almost half of the 45 included prevalence studies. There was some evidence for modality-specific hallucination predictors, but this was largely tentative, pending robust replication.ConclusionsMarked prevalence figures coupled with phenomenological descriptions implicating distress denote that non-visual and multisensory hallucinations in PD are of clinical significance. More direct research and clinical attention need to be devoted to the study and management of such hallucinatory experiences.
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.