SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Self-reported parkinsonism features in older autistic adults: A descriptive study

· 2020-12-03

DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/eaj94

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Prior research suggests that autistic adults are at increased risk for developing the core motor components of Parkinson’s disease (i.e., parkinsonism) though knowledge is limited to date. Therefore, we explore: (a) the prevalence of self-reported motor features typical of parkinsonism in two samples of older adults with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis (ASD) without intellectual disability: Netherlands (NL) Sample (N=296, 50-81 years; 183 males; 113 females; United States of America (USA) Sample (N=209, 50-83 years; 100 males; 109 females), and (b) whether there are demographic and/or background differences between those who screen positive versus negative for parkinsonism. Within the NL sample only, the age of onset of the motor features was investigated. Self-reported parkinsonism features were prevalent in both samples (NL sample ~17% screened positive for parkinsonism, mean age of onset ranging from 35.9 to 50.4 years; USA sample ~33% screened positive). Autistic adults in the NL sample screening positive encountered more health problems than those who screened negative. In both samples, autistic adults who screened positive did not differ on current antipsychotic medication use relative to those who screened negative. The next step is to determine whether self-reported parkinsonism features are associated with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease.

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.