SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Proprioceptive and olfactory deficits in individuals with Parkinson disease and mild cognitive impairment.

Acta Neurol Belg · 2023-11-14

DOI: 10.1007/s13760-023-02420-wPMID: 37962784

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

BackgroundIndividuals with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson disease (PD) and Alzheimer's (AD) disease often present with perceptual impairments at an early clinical stage. Therefore, early identification and quantification of these impairments could facilitate diagnosis and early intervention.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare proprioceptive and olfactory sensitivities in individuals diagnosed with PD and mild cognitive impairment (MCI).MethodsProprioception in the forearm and olfactory function were measured in neurotypical older adults, individuals with PD, and individuals with MCI. Position and passive motion senses were assessed using a passive motion apparatus. The traditional Chinese version of the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test (UPSIT-TC) and the smell threshold test (STT) were used to identify and discriminate smell, respectively.ResultsPosition sense threshold between the groups differed significantly (p ConclusionsProprioceptive and olfactory sensitivities were reduced in individuals with PD and MCI, and these deficits were related to disease severity. These findings support previous findings indicating that perceptual loss may be a potential biomarker for diagnosing and monitoring disease progression in individuals with neurodegenerative diseases.

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.