Parkinson's disease case ascertainment in a large prospective cohort

1Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background In epidemiologic studies where physician-based case adjudication is not feasible, Parkinson's disease (PD) case ascertainment is often limited to self-reports which may not be accurate. We evaluated strategies to identify PD cases in the Agricultural Health Study (AHS). Methods Doctor-diagnosed PD was self-reported on all cohort-wide surveys; potential cases were also identified from death certificates. Follow-up surveys asked about PD-related motor and non-motor symptoms. For PD confirmation, we collected additional diagnosis, symptom, and treatment data from 510 potential PD cases or their proxy (65% of those contacted) in a supplemental screener and obtained medical records for a subset (n = 65). We classified PD cases using established criteria and screener data. Results Of 510 potential PD cases, 75% were considered "probable" or "possible"; this proportion increased among participants diagnosed by a specialist (81.2%), taking PD medication (85.2%), or reporting ≥5 motor symptoms (86.8%) in a regular AHS survey. Of those with medical records, 93% (57 of 61) of probable or possible PD was confirmed. Never-smoking and non-motor and motor symptoms reported in prior AHS surveys were more common with probable/possible PD than unconfirmed PD. Conclusion In this retrospective PD case ascertainment effort, we found that PD self-report with information on motor symptoms or medications may be a reasonable alternative for identifying PD cases when physician exam is not feasible. Because of intervening mortality, screeners could not be obtained from about one-third of those contacted. Thus, findings warrant replication.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shrestha, S., Parks, C. G., Richards-Barber, M., Chen, H., & Sandler, D. P. (2021, May 1). Parkinson’s disease case ascertainment in a large prospective cohort. PLoS ONE. Public Library of Science. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251852

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free