NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundRespiratory dysfunction is a recognised but underexplored feature of Parkinson's Disease. Understanding underlying mechanisms and their possible impact on breathing patterns is crucial to endeavours to improve respiratory morbidity and mortality associated with Parkinson's Disease.ObjectiveThis study explored perceived dyspnoea and resting tidal breathing patterns in Parkinson's Disease compared to healthy controls.MethodsNineteen Parkinson's Disease participants and 19 age and gender matched controls were recruited. Respiratory assessment included the modified Borg dyspnoea scale, modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, and respiratory inductance plethysmography to measure inspiratory time, expiratory time, total cycle time, respiratory rate, I:E ratio, and thoracic excursion during tidal breathing.ResultsParkinson's Disease participants (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1-3; 10 men; 9 women, mean age 65 +/-8years; mean MDS-UPRRS 44.05 +/-18.9) reported significantly greater respiratory disability (modified Medical Research Council) compared to controls (p = 0.005). Dyspnoea rating (modified Borg dyspnoea scale) and disability was significantly greater in the Tremor Dominant group (p ConclusionIndividuals with Parkinson's Disease experience functional disability related to dyspnoea and altered breathing patterns compared to controls. Further research is warranted with larger numbers to explore these findings across Parkinson's Disease stages and motor subtypes to develop strategies to improve respiratory health in Parkinson's Disease.
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.