Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35073872›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2022

Does the 5-2-1 criteria identify patients with advanced Parkinson's disease? Real-world screening accuracy and burden of 5-2-1-positive patients in 7 countries.

Irene A Malaty, Pablo Martinez-Martin, K Ray Chaudhuri, Per Odin, Matej Skorvanek, Joohi Jimenez-Shahed, Michael J Soileau, Susanna Lindvall, Josefa Domingos, Sarah Jones and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. What's in a name? reframing advanced Parkinson's disease as a multidimensional state.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Refractory Motor Complications: Towards a Pragmatic Definition.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

19 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.

Irene A MalatyUniversity of Florida, Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases, Gainesville, FL, USA. Irene.malaty@neurology.ufl.edu.
Pablo Martinez-MartinCenter for Networked Biomedical Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIBERNED), Carlos III Institute of Health, Madrid, Spain.
K Ray ChaudhuriParkinson Foundation Centre of Excellence, King's College Hospital and King's College, London, UK.
Per OdinUniversity of Lund, Lund, Sweden.
Matej SkorvanekDepartment of Neurology, P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia.
Joohi Jimenez-ShahedDepartment of Neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Michael J SoileauTexas Movement Disorder Specialists, Georgetown, TX, USA.
Susanna LindvallEuropean Parkinson's Disease Association (EPDA), Sevenoaks, UK.
Josefa DomingosEuropean Parkinson's Disease Association (EPDA), Sevenoaks, UK.
Sarah JonesParkinson & Movement Disorder Alliance, Tucson, USA.
Ali AlobaidiAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Yash J JalundhwalaAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Prasanna L KandukuriAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Koray OnukAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Lars BergmannAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Samira FemiaAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Michelle Y LeeAbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA.
Jack WrightAdelphi Real World, Bollington, UK.
Angelo AntoniniParkinson and Movement Disorders Unit, Department of Neuroscience, University of Padua, Padova, Italy.
AbbVie (United States) · USAdelphi Group (United Kingdom) · GBBiomedical Research Networking Center on Neurodegenerative Diseases · ESIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USKing's College London · GBLund University · SEOrdem dos Médicos · PTParkinson's UK · GBUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Padua · ITUniverzitná Nemocnica Louisa Pasteura · SK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe burden of Parkinson's disease (PD) worsens with disease progression. However, the lack of objective and uniform disease classification challenges our understanding of the incremental burden in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (APD) and suboptimal medication control. The 5-2-1 criteria was proposed by clinical consensus to identify patients with advancing PD. Our objective was to evaluate the screening accuracy and incremental clinical burden, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and humanistic burden in PD patients meeting the 5-2-1 screening criteria.

methodsData were drawn from the Adelphi Parkinson's Disease Specific Program (DSP™), a multi-country point-in-time survey (2017-2020). People with PD who were naive to device-aided therapy and on oral PD therapy were included. Patients meeting the 5-2-1 screening criteria had one or more of the three clinical indicators of APD: (i) ≥5 doses of oral levodopa/day, OR (ii) "off" symptoms for ≥2 h of waking day, OR (iii) ≥1 h of troublesome dyskinesia. Clinician assessment of PD stage was used as the reference in this study. Clinical screening accuracy of the 5-2-1 criteria was assessed using area under the curve and multivariable logistic regression models. Incremental clinical, HCRU, and humanistic burden were assessed by known-group comparisons between 5 and 2-1-positive and negative patients.

resultsFrom the analytic sample (n = 4714), 33% of patients met the 5-2-1 screening criteria. Among physician-classified APD patients, 78.6% were 5-2-1 positive. Concordance between clinician judgment and 5-2-1 screening criteria was > 75%. 5-2-1-positive patients were nearly 7-times more likely to be classified as APD by physician judgment. Compared with the 5-2-1-negative group, 5-2-1-positive patients had significantly higher clinical, HCRU, and humanistic burden across all measures. In particular, 5-2-1-positive patients had 3.8-times more falls, 3.6-times higher annual hospitalization rate, and 3.4-times greater dissatisfaction with PD treatment. 5-2-1-positive patients also had significantly lower quality of life and worse caregiver burden.

conclusions5-2-1 criteria demonstrated potential as a screening tool for identifying people with APD with considerable clinical, humanistic, and HCRU burden. The 5-2-1 screening criteria is an objective and reliable tool that may aid the timely identification and treatment optimization of patients inadequately controlled on oral PD medications.

Indexed as

Parkinson DiseaseHumansLevodopaPatient Acceptance of Health CareQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesLevodopa5–2-1 criteriaAdvanced Parkinson’s diseaseScreening performance, clinical burden

Identifiers

PMID35073872
PMCPMC8785442
OpenAlexW4206905295

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.