Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundTimely referral of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients to specialized centers for treatment with device-aided therapies (DAT) is suboptimal.ObjectiveTo develop a screening tool for timely referral for DAT in PD and to compare the tool with the published 5-2-1 criteria.MethodsA cross-sectional, observational study was performed in 8 hospitals in the catchment area of a specialized movement disorder center in the Northern part of the Netherlands. The target population comprised PD patients not yet on DAT visiting the outpatient clinic of participating hospitals. The primary outcome was apparent eligibility for referral for DAT based on consensus by a panel of 5 experts in the field of DAT. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to develop a screening tool for eligibility for referral for DAT. Potential predictors were patient and disease characteristics as observed by attending neurologists.ResultsIn total, 259 consecutive PD patients were included, of whom 17 were deemed eligible for referral for DAT (point prevalence: 6.6%). Presence of response fluctuations and troublesome dyskinesias were the strongest independent predictors of being considered eligible. Both variables were included in the final model, as well as levodopa equivalent daily dose. Decision curve analysis revealed the new model outperforms the 5-2-1 criteria. A simple chart was constructed to provide guidance for referral. Discrimination of this simplified scoring system proved excellent (AUC after bootstrapping: 0.97).ConclusionsAwaiting external validation, the developed screening tool already appears promising for timely referral and subsequent treatment with DAT in patients with PD.
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.