SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Sex Differences in Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms among Spanish Patients with Parkinson's Disease.

J Clin Med · 2023-02-07

DOI: 10.3390/jcm12041329PMID: 36835866

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

Background and objectiveSex plays a role in Parkinson's disease (PD) mechanisms. We analyzed sex difference manifestations among Spanish patients with PD.Patients and methodsPD patients who were recruited from the Spanish cohort COPPADIS from January 2016 to November 2017 were included. A cross-sectional and a two-year follow-up analysis were conducted. Univariate analyses and general linear model repeated measure were used.ResultsAt baseline, data from 681 PD patients (mean age 62.54 ± 8.93) fit the criteria for analysis. Of them, 410 (60.2%) were males and 271 (39.8%) females. There were no differences between the groups in mean age (62.36 ± 8.73 vs. 62.8 ± 9.24; p = 0.297) or in the time from symptoms onset (5.66 ± 4.65 vs. 5.21 ± 4.11; p = 0.259). Symptoms such as depression (p p p p p p p p = 0.002). Perception of quality of life was generally worse in females (PDQ-39, p = 0.002; EUROHIS-QOL8, p = 0.009). After the two-year follow-up, the NMS burden (Non-Motor Symptoms Scale total score) increased more significantly in males (p = 0.012) but the functional capacity (Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale) was more impaired in females (p = 0.001).ConclusionThe present study demonstrates that there are important sex differences in PD. Long-term prospective comparative studies are needed.

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.