SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of cognitive disorders in Parkinson's disease: Consensus recommendations from a modified Delphi process.

Alzheimers Dement (Amst) · 2025-07-24

DOI: 10.1002/dad2.70152PMID: 40708679

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

IntroductionVariations in clinical management of cognitive disorders in Parkinson's disease (PD) can delay diagnosis, treatment, and care. To harmonize clinical practice, we aimed to gain consensus on best practice recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of cognitive disorders in PD.MethodFifty-eight evidence-based recommendations were presented to an expert panel (N = 29) of Australian PD clinicians and researchers using a modified Delphi approach to gauge agreement. A 5-point Likert scale was used, with a median score > 4 and inter-quartile range N = 13) revised recommendations based on panel feedback.ResultsFifty-one evidence-based and expert-endorsed recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, and management of cognitive disorders in PD were produced.DiscussionThe recommendations serve as a foundational framework to guide clinical practice for cognitive disorders in PD and improve the provision of care.HighlightsRecommendations for cognitive disorders in Parkinson's disease were developed.Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of cognitive disorders were explored.A modified Delphi approach was used.A panel of 29 Australian clinician and/or research experts provided input.Fifty-one evidence-based and expert-backed recommendations were developed.

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.