88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease : MDS-PD Clinical Diagnostic Criteria

      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.

          Abstract

          This document presents the Movement Disorder Society Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson's disease (PD). The Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria are intended for use in clinical research but also may be used to guide clinical diagnosis. The benchmark for these criteria is expert clinical diagnosis; the criteria aim to systematize the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by clinicians with less expertise in PD diagnosis. Although motor abnormalities remain central, increasing recognition has been given to nonmotor manifestations; these are incorporated into both the current criteria and particularly into separate criteria for prodromal PD. Similar to previous criteria, the Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core feature of the disease, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor or rigidity. Explicit instructions for defining these cardinal features are included. After documentation of parkinsonism, determination of PD as the cause of parkinsonism relies on three categories of diagnostic features: absolute exclusion criteria (which rule out PD), red flags (which must be counterbalanced by additional supportive criteria to allow diagnosis of PD), and supportive criteria (positive features that increase confidence of the PD diagnosis). Two levels of certainty are delineated: clinically established PD (maximizing specificity at the expense of reduced sensitivity) and probable PD (which balances sensitivity and specificity). The Movement Disorder Society criteria retain elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omit aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of PD expands, the Movement Disorder Society criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate these advances.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

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

          Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results.

          We present a clinimetric assessment of the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). The MDS-UDPRS Task Force revised and expanded the UPDRS using recommendations from a published critique. The MDS-UPDRS has four parts, namely, I: Non-motor Experiences of Daily Living; II: Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III: Motor Examination; IV: Motor Complications. Twenty questions are completed by the patient/caregiver. Item-specific instructions and an appendix of complementary additional scales are provided. Movement disorder specialists and study coordinators administered the UPDRS (55 items) and MDS-UPDRS (65 items) to 877 English speaking (78% non-Latino Caucasian) patients with Parkinson's disease from 39 sites. We compared the two scales using correlative techniques and factor analysis. The MDS-UPDRS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79-0.93 across parts) and correlated with the original UPDRS (rho = 0.96). MDS-UPDRS across-part correlations ranged from 0.22 to 0.66. Reliable factor structures for each part were obtained (comparative fit index > 0.90 for each part), which support the use of sum scores for each part in preference to a total score of all parts. The combined clinimetric results of this study support the validity of the MDS-UPDRS for rating PD.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia.

            Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Movement Disorders
                Mov Disord.
                Wiley
                08853185
                October 2015
                October 2015
                October 16 2015
                : 30
                : 12
                : 1591-1601
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Neurology; Montreal General Hospital; Montreal Quebec Canada
                [2 ]Department of Neurodegeneration; Hertie-Institute for Clinical Brain Research and German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases; Tuebingen Germany
                [3 ]Penn Neurological Institute; Philadelphia Pennsylvania USA
                [4 ]Department of Neurology; Innsbruck Medical University; Innsbruck Austria
                [5 ]Department of Neurology; The Mount Sinai Hospital; New York New York USA
                [6 ]Department of Neurology; Philipps University of Marburg; Marburg Germany
                [7 ]University of Navarra-FIMA; Pamplona Spain
                [8 ]Institute for Neurodegenerative Disorders; New Haven Connecticut USA
                [9 ]Department of Neurosciences; UC San Diego; La Jolla California USA
                [10 ]Division of Neurology; Toronto Western Hospital; Toronto Ontario Canada
                [11 ]Neuroscience Research Australia & University of NSW; Randwick Australia
                [12 ]Rush University Medical Center; Chicago Illinois USA
                [13 ]Hopital De La Salpetriere; Paris France
                [14 ]Xuanwu Hospital of Capitol of Medical University; Beijing Peoples Republic of China
                [15 ]Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour; Nijmegen Netherlands
                [16 ]The Parkinson's Disease and Movement Disorders Center, Department of Neurology; Mayo Clinic; Scottsdale Arizona USA
                [17 ]Department of Neurology; Christian-Albrechts University; Kiel Germany
                Article
                10.1002/mds.26424
                26474316
                9d1faddb-5737-4868-ad75-828ee00a07fd
                © 2015

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article