10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Sex-related differences in olfactory function and evaluation of possible confounding factors among patients with Parkinson’s disease

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.

          To develop a 10-minute cognitive screening tool (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA) to assist first-line physicians in detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a clinical state that often progresses to dementia. Validation study. A community clinic and an academic center. Ninety-four patients meeting MCI clinical criteria supported by psychometric measures, 93 patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score > or =17), and 90 healthy elderly controls (NC). The MoCA and MMSE were administered to all participants, and sensitivity and specificity of both measures were assessed for detection of MCI and mild AD. Using a cutoff score 26, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 18% to detect MCI, whereas the MoCA detected 90% of MCI subjects. In the mild AD group, the MMSE had a sensitivity of 78%, whereas the MoCA detected 100%. Specificity was excellent for both MMSE and MoCA (100% and 87%, respectively). MCI as an entity is evolving and somewhat controversial. The MoCA is a brief cognitive screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI as currently conceptualized in patients performing in the normal range on the MMSE.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality

            M Hoehn, M Yahr (1967)
            Neurology, 17(5), 427-427
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson's disease.

              Interpretation of clinical trials comparing different drug regimens for Parkinson's disease (PD) is complicated by the different dose intensities used: higher doses of levodopa and, possibly, other drugs produce better symptomatic control but more late complications. To address this problem, conversion factors have been calculated for antiparkinsonian drugs that yield a total daily levodopa equivalent dose (LED). LED estimates vary, so we undertook a systematic review of studies reporting LEDs to provide standardized formulae. Electronic database and hand searching of references identified 56 primary reports of LED estimates. Data were extracted and the mean and modal LEDs calculated. This yielded a standardized LED for each drug, providing a useful tool to express dose intensity of different antiparkinsonian drug regimens on a single scale. Using these conversion formulae to report LEDs would improve the consistency of reporting and assist the interpretation of clinical trials comparing different PD medications. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Journal of Neurology
                J Neurol
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0340-5354
                1432-1459
                January 2020
                September 25 2019
                January 2020
                : 267
                : 1
                : 57-63
                Article
                10.1007/s00415-019-09551-2
                31555978
                f21102a8-c162-4bb4-86ae-383e13310b47
                © 2020

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article