SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Sex Differences in the Treatment of People with Parkinson's Disease with a Device-Aided Therapy: A Prospective Real-World Study.

Med Sci (Basel) · 2026-04-27

DOI: 10.3390/medsci14020217PMID: 42201009

Open accessresearch-article; Multicenter Study; Journal Article; Observational StudyOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background and Objective: Sex differences in the treatment of people with Parkinson's disease (PwP) with a device-aided therapy (DAT) have been poorly investigated. Our aim was to analyze sex differences in the management and response to a DAT in PwP in daily clinical practice (DCP). Patients and Methods: Data collected in the DATs-PD GETM Spanish Registry until 30 October 2025 were used. This is a descriptive, observational, prospective, and multicenter clinical registry with progressive inclusion of PwP treated with a DAT in DCP conditions in more than 40 centers from Spain. Sex differences in the DAT received and changes in quality of life (QoL), motor symptoms (MS), non-motor symptoms (NMS), and autonomy for activities of daily living (AADL) after 6 months of treatment were analyzed. Results: A total of 618 PD patients (66.9 ± 9.5 years old; 57.6% men) were treated with a DAT. A significant difference was observed in the DAT type according to sex (p = 0.006), with 73.1% of PwP who were treated with deep brain stimulation being men. At the time of DAT indication, women were older, received a higher levodopa equivalent daily dose, and had a worse health-related QoL and AADL. OFF time decreased, whereas MS and NMS burden and health-related QoL improved at 6 months follow-up in both groups (men and women). AADL improved only in men during the OFF state. Conclusion: Sex differences were detected in the use of DATs in PwP. Improvement in OFF time, MS, NMS, and QoL was detected in both groups.

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.