Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Abstract Background To investigate the dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) function in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and explore the relevant influencing factors by improved detection and evaluation methods. Methods 100 patients with idiopathic PD (PD group) and 100 age- and gender-matched healthy people (Control group) were recruited to participate in this study. All participants were well understood the purpose and procedures of this study and gave consent. Patients with PD were evaluated and classified by the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) and the Modified Hoehn-Yahr (mHY) Scale to assess the severity of Parkinson's disease; the non-motor symptoms were evaluated by the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale of PD; the symptoms of autonomic nerve damage were evaluated by the Autonomic Nerve Scale. The participants' bilateral middle cerebral artery systolic velocities and finger blood pressure were monitored by a cerebral blood flow autoregulation detector. The obtained data were analysed by transferring function analysis(TFA) to derive some dynamic cerebral blood flow autoregulation parameters (such as phase, gain, and coherence). The differences of these parameters between PD group and Control group were compared. Correlations between dynamic cerebral blood flow autoregulation parameters and clinical characteristics were analysed by Spearman correlation and Partial correlation. Results Compared with the Control group, the peak flow velocity of the middle cerebral artery was slowed down bilaterally in PD group ( p p p
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.