Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Dysarthria is prevalent in Parkinson's disease (PD) and has negative effects on communication and social interaction. A gap exists in understanding whether patient-reported outcome measures can effectively identify speech disorders prematurely.ObjectiveCompare the relationship between patients' reported outcome measures and the speech objective outcome measure between early-onset (EOPD) and late-onset Parkinson's disease (LOPD).MethodsThirty-nine participants diagnosed before age 50 (EOPD) and 32 diagnosed older than 50 (LOPD) were included. Self-perception was collected through the Radboud Oral Motor Inventory for Parkinson's Disease questionnaire. The speech samples collected involved diadochokinesia (/pataka/) and monologue. Auditory perceptive analysis was performed through the degree of dysarthria and acoustic analysis of speech.ResultsRegarding speech characterization, there were also no significant differences in ROMP (p=0.462), degree of dysarthria (p=0.423), and acoustic variables. In EOPD, the ROMP self-perception scale was consistent with the degree of dysarthria assigned by professionals through perceptual auditory analysis. However, in LOPD, there were discrepancies when patients had a severe degree of dysarthria. Additionally, both groups had a positive and significant correlation between disease duration and the degree of dysarthria concerning ROMP.ConclusionThe results between clinical diagnosis of dysarthria and self-perception in the early and late onset groups showed no significant differences, indicating that self-perception may be a useful tool in identifying dysarthria.
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.