ReviewJournal of Parkinson's disease2025
The potential of distributed diagnostics for the early detection of Parkinson's disease.
Review in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging the global Parkinson's divide: Technology as a structural solution for equitable and brain health-integrated care.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2026Review
- The future digital outpatient clinic for movement disorders: from technological innovation to ethical and systemic implementation-a position paper.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- The potential of AI inspired approaches for patient monitoring in drug development for Huntington's disease: capturing the digital exhaust for activities of daily living.Frontiers in molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Particle swarm optimization framework for Parkinson's disease prediction.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parkinson's disease represents a major healthcare burden with over 1 million confirmed cases and economic costs of care exceeding $50 billion in the United States alone. A challenge in the evaluation of potentially disease delaying, preventing, or reversing agents is identification of patients in the very early, prodromal (asymptomatic, non-motor, or early motor) stages, which can span decades. Currently, diagnosis is based almost exclusively on clinical history and physical examination conducted by trained experts. Unfortunately for many patients, access to neurology and movement disorder specialists is geographically limited and coupled with the absence of coordinated disease awareness campaigns can contribute to substantial delays in diagnosis. As with any campaign, a key success factor is having multiple approaches which can appeal to a wide range of patient archetypes. Herein we elaborate on some emerging opportunities, which if fully developed could invigorate the approach to early detection and, critically, engage patients in this process. They include 1) Use of personal digital health technologies and community based point-of-care diagnostic instrumentation, 2) The potential to leverage annual testing services at non-traditional venues including optometry, dental and pharmacy, and 3) A consumer focused campaign to raise awareness of the importance of early detection, paralleling efforts in other diseases. There is every hope that combining traditional and non-traditional approaches to enhance early diagnosis rates can have an overall positive impact on patient outcomes and contribute substantively to efforts to develop new interventions. We urge the community to embrace these possibilities and begin active dialog on how to thoughtfully implement the approaches into routine care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.