SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Sex Differences in Fall Frequency, Risk Factors, and Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2026-05-07

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.70664PMID: 42093339

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

BackgroundFemale sex is an independent fall risk factor in Parkinson's disease (PD), yet sex-specific fall patterns remain unclear.ObjectivesTo compare sex-specific fall risk and outcomes across PD, prodromal alpha-synucleinopathy (PAS), and healthy controls (HC); estimate fall frequency across PD progression; and assess how sex modifies fall risk and outcomes.MethodsFall outcomes were analyzed in the Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative. Yearly rates of rare and frequent falls were estimated by time since diagnosis. PD participants were classified as never, rare, or frequent fallers. Clinical measures included motor, cognitive, behavioral, sleep, and autonomic domains. Outcomes included injuries and healthcare utilization. Regression models adjusted for age, sex, and disease duration with Benjamini-Hochberg correction.ResultsAmong 3100 participants (937 PD, 1926 PAS, 237 HC; 6977 visits), PD participants had higher odds of falling than PAS (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.46-1.87) and HC (OR 4.03, 95% CI 3.14-5.23). In PD and PAS, females had higher odds of injuries (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.20-1.88) and fractures (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15-2.29), including hip (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.09-4.91) and upper-extremity fractures (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.51-4.85). Within PD, falls increased with disease duration and were higher in females (7 years: 42% vs. 32%; 14 years: 88% vs. 61%) despite milder clinical profiles. Across the Neuronal Synuclein Disease-Integrated Staging System (NSD-ISS) stages, fall occurrence was higher in females.ConclusionFalls increase with disease duration and NSD-ISS stage. Female PD participants are at greater risk despite milder symptoms, supporting sex-specific prevention strategies.

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.