↓ Skip to main content

Impulse-Control Disorders in Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Case–Control Studies

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Impulse-Control Disorders in Parkinson’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Case–Control Studies
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00330
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helge Molde, Yasaman Moussavi, Stine Therese Kopperud, Aleksander Hagen Erga, Anita Lill Hansen, Ståle Pallesen

Abstract

Although several case-control studies on the prevalence of Impulse-Control Disorders (ICDs) in Parkinson's Disease (PD) have been conducted, no meta-analytic study on this topic has previously been published. Thus, knowledge about the overall prevalence rate of ICD in PD and factors that might moderate this relationship is lacking. Prevalence studies of ICDs in PD were identified by computer searches in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases, covering the period from January 2000 to February 2017. Data for N = 4,539, consisting of 2,371 PD patients and 2,168 healthy controls, representing 14 case-control studies were included. Estimation of the odds ratio (OR) of ICDs in PD compared to healthy controls was conducted using random-effects models. Mixed-effects models were applied in the moderator analysis of heterogeneity. Publication bias was estimated using a contour-enhanced funnel plot, the Rüker's test, and fail-safe N test for estimating the number of potential missing studies. Overall, the results showed significantly higher ratios for several ICDs in PD compared to healthy controls with the estimated overall ORs ranging between 2.07, 95% CI [1.26, 3.48], for having any ICDs, and 4.26, 95% CI [2.17, 8.36], for hypersexuality. However, the random-effects results for shopping were non-significant, though the fixed-effects model was significant (OR = 1.66, 95%CI [1.21, 2.27]). The testing of potential moderator variables of heterogeneity identified the following two variables that were both associated with increased risk: being medically treated for PD and disease duration. The results must be interpreted with some caution due to possible small-studies effect or publication bias. Individuals with PD seem to have a significantly greater risk of suffering from ICDs compared to healthy controls. Gambling, hypersexuality, eating, punding, and hobbying are all ICDs significantly associated with PDs being medically treated for PD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 22 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 14 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Psychology 8 12%
Engineering 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,555,072
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#3,859
of 11,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,679
of 330,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#75
of 307 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 330,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 307 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.