ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Validation of Parkinson's Disease Diagnoses in a National Register: Accuracy, Limitations, and Utility.
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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.