This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective To update data for diagnostic accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of Parkinson disease (PD) using neuropathologic diagnosis as the gold standard.
Methods Data from the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders (AZSAND) were used to determine the predictive value of a clinical PD diagnosis. Two clinical diagnostic confidence levels were used, possible PD (PossPD, never treated or not responsive) and probable PD (ProbPD, 2/3 cardinal clinical signs and responsive to dopaminergic medications). Neuropathologic diagnosis was the gold standard.
Results Based on the first visit to AZSAND, 15/54 (27.8%) PossPD participants and 138/163 (84.7%) ProbPD participants had confirmed PD. PD was confirmed in 24/34 (70.6%) ProbPD with <5 years and 114/128 (89.1%) with ≥5 years disease duration. Using the consensus final clinical diagnosis following death, 161/187 (86.1%) ProbPD had neuropathologically confirmed PD. Diagnostic accuracy for ProbPD improved if included motor fluctuations, dyskinesias, and hyposmia, and hyposmia for PossPD.
Conclusions This updated study confirmed lower clinical diagnostic accuracy for elderly, untreated or poorly responsive PossPD participants and for ProbPD with <5 years of disease duration, even when medication responsive. Caution continues to be needed when interpreting clinical studies of PD, especially studies of early disease, that do not have autopsy confirmation.
Classification of Evidence This study provides Class II evidence that a clinical diagnosis of ProbPD at the first visit identifies participants who will have pathologically confirmed PD with a sensitivity of 82.6% and a specificity of 86.0%.
Footnotes
Funding information and disclosures are provided at the end of the article. Full disclosure form information provided by the authors is available with the full text of this article at Neurology.org/cp.
Class of Evidence: NPub.org/coe
- Received July 22, 2020.
- Accepted October 1, 2020.
- © 2021 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
The Nerve!: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
