SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Retinal Thickness in Patients with Parkinson's Disease and Dopa Responsive Dystonia-Is There Any Difference?

Biomedicines · 2025-05-19

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines13051227PMID: 40427054

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/Objectives: Certain aspects of retinal thickness assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) require additional clarification. It is supposed that attributing reduced retinal thickness in PD to dopaminergic loss may not be acceptable as it also happens in diseases where dopaminergic loss does not occur. The objective of our study is to compare the ganglion cell/inner plexiform layer (GCIPL), peripapillary retinal nerve fiber layer (pRNFL), and macular thickness of PD and dopa responsive dystonia (DRD) patients with healthy controls (HC), to investigate whether DRD patients, as a distinctive model of genetically induced dopamine deficiency, have reduced retinal thickness in comparison with PD, and to analyze correlation between retinal thickness and various PD clinical parameters. Methods: We analyzed 86 patients with PD, 10 patients with DRD, and 96 age- and sex-matched HC. Results: GCIPL, pRNFL, and central macula thickness (CMT) are statistically significantly thinner in PD patients compared to HC (p p = 0.012, p = 0.001, respectively). GCIPL thickness correlates positively with the daily dose of levodopa (r = 0.244, p p p p Conclusions: Patients with PD and DRD did not differ in GCIPL and pRNFL thickness when compared to one another. These results, supported by positive correlation of levodopa dose and GCIPL thickness in PD patients, emphasize the importance of dopamine in maintaining retinal thickness.

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.