Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Time to redefine PD? Introductory statement of the MDS Task Force on the definition of Parkinson's disease
Berg D, Postuma RB, Bloem B, Chan P, Dubois B, Gasser T, Goetz CG, Halliday GM et al.. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society, 2014-03-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
With advances in knowledge disease, boundaries may change. Occasionally, these changes are of such a magnitude that they require redefinition of the disease. In recognition of the profound changes in our understanding of Parkinson's disease (PD), the International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society (MDS) commissioned a task force to consider a redefinition of PD. This review is a discussion article, intended as the introductory statement of the task force. Several critical issues were identified that challenge current PD definitions. First, new findings challenge the central role of the classical pathologic criteria as the arbiter of diagnosis, notably genetic cases without synuclein deposition, the high prevalence of incidental Lewy body (LB) deposition, and the nonmotor prodrome of PD. It remains unclear, however, whether these challenges merit a change in the pathologic gold standard, especially considering the limitations of alternate gold standards. Second, the increasing recognition of dementia in PD challenges the distinction between diffuse LB disease and PD. Consideration might be given to removing dementia as an exclusion criterion for PD diagnosis. Third, there is increasing recognition of disease heterogeneity, suggesting that PD subtypes should be formally identified; however, current subtype classifications may not be sufficiently robust to warrant formal delineation. Fourth, the recognition of a nonmotor prodrome of PD requires that new diagnostic criteria for early-stage and prodromal PD should be created; here, essential features of these criteria are proposed. Finally, there is a need to create new MDS diagnostic criteria that take these changes in disease definition into consideration.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Berg, D., Postuma, R. B., Bloem, B., Chan, P., Dubois, B., Gasser, T., et al. (2014). Time to redefine PD? Introductory statement of the MDS Task Force on the definition of Parkinson's disease. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25844
Vancouver
Berg D, Postuma RB, Bloem B, Chan P, Dubois B, Gasser T, et al. Time to redefine PD? Introductory statement of the MDS Task Force on the definition of Parkinson's disease. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society. 2014. doi:10.1002/mds.25844. PMID: 24619848.
BibTeX
@article{berg2014-24619848,
author = {Berg, D. and Postuma, R. B. and Bloem, B. and Chan, P. and Dubois, B. and Gasser, T. and Goetz, C. G. and Halliday, G. M. and others},
title = {{Time to redefine PD? Introductory statement of the MDS Task Force on the definition of Parkinson's disease}},
journal = {Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1002/mds.25844},
pmid = {24619848},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25844}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Third, there is increasing recognition of disease heterogeneity, suggesting that PD subtypes should be formally identified; however, current subtype classifications may not be sufficiently robust to warrant formal delineation.
Why it matters
This discussion article from a task force raises questions about how Parkinson's disease should be defined, including whether dementia should remain an exclusion criterion. It is about disease definition and does not report a treatment, cure or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 56/100
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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Movement Disorders: journal h-index 281 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 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 | 6 / 7 | Cited 507 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 4 / 5 | 36.2 citations a year over 14 year(s) since 2014 |
| Impact for its field and year | 5 / 6 | Cited 33.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 3 / 6 | Cited by 10 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 3 / 4 | Cited 98 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Günther Deuschl: h-index 135 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 25 institution(s) in 10 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24619848) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Total | 56 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here. Showing 12 of 14.
Later studies that cite this one
10 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
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.