Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27445791›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in aging neuroscience2016

Prodromal Markers in Parkinson's Disease: Limitations in Longitudinal Studies and Lessons Learned.

Sebastian Heinzel, Benjamin Roeben, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, Stefanie Lerche, Guido Alves, Paolo Barone, Stefanie Behnke, Henk W Berendse, Bastiaan R Bloem, David Burn and 14 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in aging neuroscience, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparison of Transcranial Sonography and [Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Sebastian HeinzelDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany.
Benjamin RoebenDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany.
Yoav Ben-ShlomoSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol Bristol, UK.
Stefanie LercheDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany.
Guido AlvesNorwegian Centre for Movement Disorders and Department of Neurology, Stavanger University Hospital Stavanger, Norway.
Paolo BaroneCenter for Neurodegenerative Diseases (CEMAND), Neuroscience Section, Department of Medicine, University of Salerno Salerno, Italy.
Stefanie BehnkeDepartment of Neurology, University of Homburg Homburg, Germany.
Henk W BerendseDepartment of Neurology and Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Medical Centre Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Bastiaan R BloemRadboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behavior, Department of Neurology Nijmegen, Netherlands.
David BurnInstitute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Richard DodelDepartment of Neurology, Philipps-University Marburg Marburg, Germany.
Donald G GrossetInstitute of Neurological Sciences, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital Glasgow, UK.
Michele HuOxford Parkinson's Disease Centre and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford Oxford, UK.
Meike KastenInstitute of Neurogenetics, University of Lübeck Lübeck, Germany.
Rejko KrügerClinical and Experimental Neuroscience, Luxembourg Center for Systems Biomedicine Belva, Luxembourg.
Marcello MocciaCenter for Neurodegenerative Diseases (CEMAND), Neuroscience Section, Department of Medicine, University of Salerno Salerno, Italy.
Brit MollenhauerParacelsus-Elena-KlinikKassel, Germany; Department of Neuropathology, University Medical CenterGöttingen, Germany.
Wolfgang OertelDepartment of Neurology, Philipps-University Marburg Marburg, Germany.
Ulrike SuenkelDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany.
Uwe WalterDepartment of Neurology, University of Rostock Rostock, Germany.
Karin WirdefeldtDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet Stockholm, Sweden.
Inga Liepelt-ScarfoneDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany.
Walter MaetzlerDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany.
Daniela BergDepartment of Neurodegeneration, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of TübingenTübingen, Germany; Department of Neurology, Christian-Albrechts-UniversityKiel, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing body of evidence supports a prodromal neurodegenerative process preceding the clinical onset of Parkinson's disease (PD). Studies have identified several different prodromal markers that may have the potential to predict the conversion from healthy to clinical PD but use considerably different approaches. We systematically reviewed 35 longitudinal studies reporting prodromal PD features and evaluated the methodological quality across 10 different predefined domains. We found limitations in the following domains: PD diagnosis (57% of studies), prodromal marker assessments (51%), temporal information on prodromal markers or PD diagnosis (34%), generalizability of results (17%), statistical methods (accounting for at least age as confounder; 17%), study design (14%), and sample size (9%). However, no limitations regarding drop-out (or bias investigation), or report of inclusion/exclusion criteria or prodromal marker associations were revealed. Lessons learned from these limitations and additional aspects of current prodromal marker studies in PD are discussed to provide a basis for the evaluation of findings and the improvement of future research in prodromal PD. The observed heterogeneity of studies, limitations and analyses might be addressed in future longitudinal studies using a, yet to be established, modular minimal set of assessments improving comparability of findings and enabling data sharing and combined analyses across studies.

Indexed as

case-controlclinicalcohortlongitudinalmarkerParkinson’s diseaseprodromalprospective

Identifiers

PMID27445791
PMCPMC4916171

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.