ReviewDer Nervenarzt2017
[Diagnostics of clinical and prodromal idiopathic Parkinson's disease : New criteria].
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Creation of a machine learning-based model for early identification of mild cognitive impairment risk in Parkinson's disease: A PD research center-based population study.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Article
- Correlation between Electrode Location and Anxiety Depression of Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Subthalamic nucleus-deep brain stimulation improves autonomic dysfunctions in Parkinson's disease.BMC neurology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, the Movement Disorder Society (MDS) published an adaptation of the previous United Kingdom Brain Bank Society (UKBBS) criteria for the diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (iPD).
objectivesThis article presents the changes in the current clinical diagnostic criteria for IPD. Furthermore, the new MDS criteria for prodromal iPD are discussed.
resultsThe recently introduced MDS criteria for the clinical diagnosis of iPD include useful novel features (e.g. postural instability is no longer listed as a cardinal symptom, familiar history of iPD and intake of neuroleptics at the first visit no longer lead to exclusion of the diagnosis) and red flags do not lead to exclusion of the diagnosis; however, they must be counterbalanced by the presence of supportive criteria for iPD. The criteria for identification of persons in the prodromal stage are currently established only for scientific investigations.
conclusionThe new MDS criteria for the diagnostics of iPD should help to improve the sensitivity and specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28213756What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.