↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson’s Disease: From James Parkinson to the Concept of Prodromal Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
523 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson’s Disease: From James Parkinson to the Concept of Prodromal Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00156
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Marsili, Giovanni Rizzo, Carlo Colosimo

Abstract

The diagnosis of Parkinson's disease (PD) is based on clinical features and differently to the common opinion that detecting this condition is easy, seminal clinicopathological studies have shown that up one-fourth of patients diagnosed as PD during life has an alternative diagnosis at postmortem. The misdiagnosis is even higher when only the initial diagnosis is considered, since the diagnostic accuracy improves by time, during follow-up visits. Given that the confirmation of the diagnosis of PD can be only obtained through neuropathology, to improve and facilitate the diagnostic-therapeutic workup in PD, a number of criteria and guidelines have been introduced in the last three decades. In the present paper, we will critically re-appraise the main diagnostic criteria proposed for PD, with particular attention to the recently published criteria by the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) task force, underlying their novelty and focusing on the diagnostic issues still open. We also emphasize that the MDS-PD criteria encompass the two main previous sets of diagnostic criteria (United Kingdom PD Society Brain Bank and Gelb's criteria), introducing at the same time new aspects as the use of non-motor symptoms as additional diagnostic features, and the adoption of the concept of prodromal PD, crucial to enroll in clinical trials PD patients in the very early phase of the disease. To better understand the real diffusion of the new MDS-PD diagnostic criteria among neurologists, we have also collected selective opinions of sixteen movement disorder experts from various world regions on their practical approach for the clinical diagnosis of PD. Results from this brief survey showed that, although innovative and complete, the revised diagnostic criteria produced by MDS task force are still scarcely employed among clinicians. We believe that both national and international scientific societies should operate in the future for a broader diffusion of these criteria with specific initiatives, including dedicated events and teaching courses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 523 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 523 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 89 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 11%
Student > Master 46 9%
Researcher 37 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 6%
Other 70 13%
Unknown 197 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 19%
Neuroscience 78 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 4%
Psychology 20 4%
Other 60 11%
Unknown 214 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,736,878
of 25,882,826 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#662
of 14,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,762
of 349,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#14
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,882,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.