4.6 Article

Patient perception of dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2009.173286

关键词

-

资金

  1. St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division
  2. UCB Pharma
  3. Teva Neuroscience
  4. Novartis
  5. Kyowa
  6. Teva
  7. Eisai
  8. GW Bayer
  9. Prestwick
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. Boerhinger-Ingelheim
  12. Ceregene
  13. Medtronic
  14. Serono
  15. Solvay
  16. Taro

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To evaluate the perception of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) regarding dyskinesia. Design Multicentre survey. Setting Tertiary referral centres. Patients Patients with PD participated in a survey: those not on dopaminergic medications (group I), those on dopaminergic medications without dyskinesia (group II) and those on dopaminergic medications with dyskinesia (group III). Intervention After a short standardised description and explanation of dyskinesia was provided, patients were asked about the nature and source of prior knowledge of dyskinesia. They were then asked about their perceptions of dyskinesia. Patients in group III were also asked about the duration, the severity of dyskinesia and whether their perception of this problem had changed since its appearance. Main outcome measures Level of concern regarding dyskinesia and whether their perception of dyskinesia would have changed their preference of treatment. Results 259 PD patients completed the survey (group I, 52; group II, 102; group III, 105). Patients with dyskinesia were significantly less concerned about dyskinesia than patients without dyskinesia and were more likely to choose dyskinesia over being parkinsonian. Patients who required fewer changes in medications because of dyskinesia were more likely to choose dyskinesia over parkinsonism. Conclusion Patients with PD experiencing dyskinesia are less likely to be concerned about dyskinesia and more likely to prefer dyskinesia over parkinsonian symptoms than patients without dyskinesia.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据