SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Retinal Morphological Changes during the Two Years of Follow-Up in Parkinson's Disease

· 2020-03-15

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-17217/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Abstract Background: The study aims to investigate the relationship between the progression of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) and retinal morphology. Methods: The study was carried out with 23 patients diagnosed with early-stage IPD (phases 1 and 2 of the Hoehn and Yahr scale) and 30 age-matched healthy controls. All patients were followed up at least two years, with 6-month intervals (initial, 6th month, 12th month, 18th month, and 24th month), and detailed neurological and ophthalmic examinations were performed at each follow-up. Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III (UPDRS Part III) scores, Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) scores, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), intraocular pressure (IOP) measurement, central macular thickness (CMT) and retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) thickness were analyzed at each visit. Results: The average age of the IPD and control groups was 43.96 ± 4.88 years, 44.53 ± 0.83 years, respectively. The mean duration of the disease in the IPD group was 7.48 ± 5.10 months at the start of the study (range 0-16). There was no statistically significant difference in BCVA and IOP values between the two groups during the two-year follow-up period (p> 0.05, p> 0.05, respectively). Average and superior quadrant RNFL thicknesses were statistically different between the two groups at 24 months and there was no significant difference between other visits (p = 0.025, p=0.034, p> 0.05, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in CMT between the two groups during the follow-up period (p> 0.05). Conclusion: Average and superior quadrant RNFL thicknesses were significantly thinning with the progression of IPD.

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.