Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42200204›Full record

ArticleClinical epidemiology2026

Validation of Parkinson's Disease Diagnoses in a National Register: Accuracy, Limitations, and Utility.

Valtteri Räty, Tomi Kuusimäki, Tero Vahlberg, Anna-Maija Tolppanen, Valtteri Kaasinen

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Valtteri RätyClinical Neurosciences, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6043-798X
Tomi KuusimäkiClinical Neurosciences, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Tero VahlbergDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Anna-Maija TolppanenSchool of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9270-9268
Valtteri KaasinenClinical Neurosciences, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-3446-7093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic validity of PD identification in a national health registry requiring neurologist-confirmed diagnoses. Patients and Methods: We analyzed the Turku PD Cohort including 1626 patients diagnosed with PD between 2006 and 2020 in specialist care. Patients were identified based on ≥2 entries of ICD-10 code G20. Diagnoses were re-evaluated through detailed chart review after a median follow-up of approximately 10 years. Two movement disorder specialists independently classified final diagnoses based on clinical records, imaging, and treatment data. Linkage to the Finnish Register of the Entitlements to Reimbursement of Pharmaceutical Expenses identified patients granted reimbursement for antiparkinsonian medications under ICD-10 code G20. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using the final clinical diagnosis as the reference. Results: Of the 1626 patients, 1550 (95.3%) had received reimbursement for PD medications. After long-term follow-up, 1314 were confirmed as PD and 236 reclassified to alternative diagnoses. Registry identification showed high sensitivity (98.2%) and PPV (84.8%). Only 24 confirmed PD cases (1.8%) were not captured. Diagnostic revisions most commonly reflected atypical or secondary parkinsonian syndromes. Specificity was lower (18.1%), reflecting diagnostic evolution during follow-up rather than systematic miscoding. The median delay between diagnosis and registry entry was 24 days. Conclusion: A national health registry requiring neurologist-confirmed diagnoses enables highly sensitive PD case identification with good PPV for epidemiological research. However, diagnostic evolution in early parkinsonism limits specificity in cross-sectional register data. Registry studies should therefore apply follow-up exclusion algorithms for alternative parkinsonian diagnoses.

Indexed as

diagnosisepidemiologyParkinson’s diseaseregistryreimbursementvalidation

Identifiers

PMID42200204
PMCPMC13199619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.