Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 38 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Lack of a global consensus on the definition of advanced Parkinson's disease (APD) and considerations for timing of device-aided therapies may result in heterogeneity in care. Objectives To reach consensus among movement disorder specialists regarding key patient characteristics indicating transition to APD and guiding appropriate use of device-aided therapies in the management of PD symptoms. Methods A Delphi-panel approach was utilized to synthesize opinions of movement disorder specialists and build consensus. Results A panel was comprised of movement disorder specialists from 10 European countries with extensive experience of treating PD patients (mean =24.8 ± 7.2 years). Consensus on indicators of suspected APD and eligibility for device-aided therapies were based on motor symptoms, non-motor symptoms, and functional impairments. Key indicators of APD included: (i) motor-moderate troublesome motor fluctuations, ≥1 h of troublesome dyskinesia/day, ≥2 h "off" symptoms/day, and ≥5-times oral levodopa doses/day; (ii) non-motor-mild dementia, and non-transitory troublesome hallucinations; (iii) functional impairment-repeated falls despite optimal treatment, and difficulty with activities of daily living. Patients with good levodopa response, good cognition, and <70 years of age were deemed as good candidates for all three device-aided therapies. Patients with troublesome dyskinesia were considered good candidates for both levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel and Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS). PD patients with levodopa-resistant tremor were considered good candidates for DBS. Conclusion Identifying patients progressing to APD and suitable for device-aided therapies will enable general neurologists to assess the need for referral to movement disorder specialists and improve the quality of care and patient outcomes.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 38/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 22 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 38 of 100. Total 38 of 100.22 of the 58 points we could judge = 38 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current medical research and opinion)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 2 / 5 2018 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 30016901)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 22 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100.
Total 38 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Antonini, A., Stoessl, A. J., Kleinman, L. S., Skalicky, A. M., Marshall, T. S., Sail, K. R., et al. (2018). Developing consensus among movement disorder specialists on clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson's disease: a multi-country Delphi-panel approach. Current medical research and opinion. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1502165

Vancouver

Antonini A, Stoessl AJ, Kleinman LS, Skalicky AM, Marshall TS, Sail KR, et al. Developing consensus among movement disorder specialists on clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson's disease: a multi-country Delphi-panel approach. Current medical research and opinion. 2018. doi:10.1080/03007995.2018.1502165. PMID: 30016901.

BibTeX

@article{antonini2018-30016901,
  author  = {Antonini, A. and Stoessl, A. J. and Kleinman, L. S. and Skalicky, A. M. and Marshall, T. S. and Sail, K. R. and Onuk, K. and Odin, P. L. A.},
  title   = {{Developing consensus among movement disorder specialists on clinical indicators for identification and management of advanced Parkinson's disease: a multi-country Delphi-panel approach}},
  journal = {Current medical research and opinion},
  year    = {2018},
  doi     = {10.1080/03007995.2018.1502165},
  pmid    = {30016901},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1502165}
}

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “bodies”

1,017 studies in the library carry the topic tag “bodies”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,017 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →