SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Evaluation of motor complications in Parkinson’s disease: understanding the perception gap between patients and physicians

· 2021-03-16

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-289875/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: Patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) receiving levodopa treatment often report the motor complications including wearing-off (WO), dyskinesia and morning akinesia phenomena. Since motor complications are associated with a decrease in patient quality of life (QoL), it is important to identify its occurrence and commence immediate management. This study investigated whether differences in the perception of motor complications exist between patients and their physicians in routine clinical practice.Methods: Following an internet-based screening survey, questionnaires were distributed to physicians and their patients in Japan. The 9-item Wearing-off Questionnaire (WOQ-9) assessed the presence of WO objectively; patients with WOQ-9 scores ≥2 were considered to have WO. McNemar’s tests were used to compare physician assessment with the WOQ-9, patient self-awareness with physician assessment, and patient self-awareness with the WOQ-9, separately. Morning akinesia, dyskinesia, and QoL were also assessed.Results: A total of 235 patients with PD and their 92 physicians participated in this survey. A significant discordance was observed between the WOQ-9 and physician assessment of WO (67.2% vs 46.0%; pConclusions: This study investigated differences in the perception of WO between patients with PD and their physicians in routine clinical practice and highlighted that patients have a low awareness of the symptoms of WO compared with physician assessments and the WOQ-9. Conversely, morning akinesia, dyskinesia, and bodily discomfort were underrecognized by physicians.

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.