Background Clinical diagnostic accuracy of Parkinson's disease (PD) remains suboptimal. Changes in disease concept may have improved clinical diagnostic accuracy in the past decade. However, current clinical diagnostic criteria have not been validated against neuropathological confirmation. Objectives This study aims to provide up‐to‐date clinical diagnostic accuracy data and validate current clinical diagnostic criteria for PD against neuropathology. Methods A retrospective review of medical records of consecutive patients with parkinsonism from the Queen Square Brain Bank was performed between 2009 and 2019. Clinical diagnosis was documented at early (within 5 years of motor symptom onset) and final stages and categorized by movement disorder experts or regular clinicians. Movement Disorder Society Parkinson's disease (MDS‐PD) diagnostic criteria were retrospectively applied. Diagnostic accuracy parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and accuracy) were calculated using neuropathological diagnosis as the gold standard. Results A total of 267 patients (141 PD and 126 non‐PD parkinsonism) were included. Clinical diagnostic accuracy was 97.2% for experts, 92.5% for the MDS clinically probable PD criteria, and 90.3% for clinicians. Similar figures were obtained when applied at an early stage (91.5%, 89.5%, and 84.2% diagnostic accuracy, respectively). MDS clinically established early PD criteria demonstrated very high specificity (98.4%) at early stages. Conclusions Our results showed an important improvement in PD clinical diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice over the past decade, more marked at early stages of the disease. MDS‐PD diagnostic criteria is a valid tool in clinical practice and research for the identification of PD patients showing excellent sensitivity and specificity, although movement disorder experts' diagnosis remains the gold standard PD diagnosis during life. © 2023 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
A BS TRACT: Background: The recent International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society diagnostic criteria for multiple system atrophy (MDS-MSA) have been developed to improve diagnostic accuracy although their diagnostic properties have not been evaluated. Objectives: The aims were to validate the MDS-MSA diagnostic criteria against neuropathological diagnosis and compare their diagnostic performance to previous criteria and diagnosis in clinical practice. Methods: Consecutive patients with sporadic, progressive, adult-onset parkinsonism, or cerebellar ataxia from the Queen Square Brain Bank between 2009 and 2019 were selected and divided based on neuropathological diagnosis into MSA and non-MSA. Medical records were systematically reviewed, and clinical diagnosis was documented by retrospectively applying the MDS-MSA criteria, second consensus criteria, and diagnosis according to treating clinicians at early (within 3 years of symptom onset) and final stages. Diagnostic parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value, and accuracy) were calculated using neuropathological diagnosis as gold standard and compared between different criteria.Results: Three hundred eighteen patients (103 MSA and 215 non-MSA) were included, comprising 248 patients with parkinsonism and 70 with cerebellar ataxia. Clinically probable MDS-MSA showed excellent sensitivity (95.1%), specificity (94.0%), and accuracy (94.3%), although their sensitivity at early stages was modest (62.1%). Clinically probable MDS-MSA outperformed diagnosis by clinicians and by second consensus criteria. Clinically established MDS-MSA showed perfect specificity (100%) even at early stages although to the detriment of low sensitivity. MDS-MSA diagnostic accuracy did not differ according to clinical presentation (ataxia vs. parkinsonism). Conclusions: MDS-MSA criteria demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance against neuropathological diagnosis and are useful diagnostic tools for clinical practice and research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.