ArticleBMC neurology2026
Alignment of 5-2-1 criteria with Neurologists' clinical judgment in identifying Advanced Parkinson's Disease in Morocco: A cross-sectional inter-rater agreement study.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAccurate identification of advanced Parkinson’s disease (APD) is crucial for optimizing treatment strategies and ensuring timely consideration of device-aided therapies. The 5–2–1 criteria, derived from an expert consensus using a Delphi-panel approach, have been proposed as a simplified and practical tool for identifying APD. This study evaluates the agreement between Moroccan neurologists’ clinical judgment and the Delphi-panel clinical indicators, with particular focus on the 5–2–1 criteria.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted over 9 months across 15 private and public facilities in five cities in the Casablanca–Settat region. Neurologists independently determined APD status, which was compared with classifications based on the 5–2–1 criteria and the remaining Delphi-panel indicators. The 5–2–1 criteria were defined by the presence of at least one of the following: ≥5 daily doses of oral levodopa, ≥ 2 h of “off” time per day, or ≥ 1 h of troublesome dyskinesia. Agreement was evaluated with Cohen’s kappa (κ).
resultsA total of 370 patients with Parkinson’s disease were included (mean age 65.1 ± 10.7 years; 50.5% male). The 5–2–1 criteria classified 44.6% of patients (95% CI: 39.5%–49.8%) as having APD, while neurologists identified 43.2% (95% CI: 38.3%–48.3%). The two assessments aligned in 73% of cases, indicating moderate agreement (κ = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.43–0.53). The highest agreement was observed when at least two 5–2–1 criteria were met (κ = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.69–0.77), with 90.6% sensitivity and 83.8% specificity, outperforming the standard 5–2–1 classification in terms of specificity (55.2%). Among individual criteria, levodopa dosing ≥ 5 times daily showed the highest agreement (κ = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.67–0.75).
conclusionsThe 5–2–1 criteria, particularly when refined to a two-criteria threshold, represent a reliable and practical approach for identifying APD and facilitating timely referral for advanced therapies in Morocco.
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.