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.

36/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Plain-language summary

Visual symptoms are common in PD and PD dementia and include difficulty reading, double vision, illusions, feelings of presence and passage, and complex visual hallucinations. Despite the established prognostic implications of complex visual hallucinations, the interaction between cognitive decline, visual impairment, and other visual symptoms remains poorly understood. Our aim was to characterize the spectrum of visual symptomatology in PD and examine clinical predictors for their occurrence. Sixty-four subjects with PD, 26 with PD dementia, and 32 age-matched controls were assessed for visual symptoms, cognitive impairment, and ocular pathology. Complex visual hallucinations were common in PD (17%) and PD dementia (89%). Dementia subjects reported illusions (65%) and presence (62%) more frequently than PD or control subjects, but the frequency of passage hallucinations in PD and PD dementia groups was equivalent (48% versus 69%, respectively; P = 0.102). Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity was impaired in parkinsonian subjects, with disease severity and age emerging as the key predictors. Regression analysis identified a variety of factors independently predictive of complex visual hallucinations (e.g., dementia, visual acuity, and depression), illusions (e.g., excessive daytime somnolence and disease severity), and presence (e.g., rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder and excessive daytime somnolence). Our results demonstrate that different "hallucinatory" experiences in PD do not necessarily share common disease predictors and may, therefore, be driven by different pathophysiological mechanisms. If confirmed, such a finding will have important implications for future studies of visual symptoms and cognitive decline in PD and PD dementia.

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

APA 7th

Archibald, N. K., Clarke, M. P., Mosimann, U. P., & Burn, D. J. (2011). Visual symptoms in Parkinson's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23891

Vancouver

Archibald NK, Clarke MP, Mosimann UP, Burn DJ. Visual symptoms in Parkinson's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia. Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society. 2011. doi:10.1002/mds.23891. PMID: 21953737.

BibTeX

@article{archibald2011-21953737,
  author  = {Archibald, N. K. and Clarke, M. P. and Mosimann, U. P. and Burn, D. J.},
  title   = {{Visual symptoms in Parkinson's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia}},
  journal = {Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society},
  year    = {2011},
  doi     = {10.1002/mds.23891},
  pmid    = {21953737},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23891}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: our record does not state a study design, so check the methods section of the original before weighing the result.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Dementia subjects reported illusions (65%) and presence (62%) more frequently than PD or control subjects, but the frequency of passage hallucinations in PD and PD dementia groups was equivalent (48% versus 69%, respectively; P = 0.102).
Our results demonstrate that different "hallucinatory" experiences in PD do not necessarily share common disease predictors and may, therefore, be driven by different pathophysiological mechanisms.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →

Study details

Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 36/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

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	— / 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	1 / 5	2011 — 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)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization 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
Multicenter collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 21953737)
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points	21 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total	36 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Risk factors from nearby years

Also in Risk factors

356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →