4.7 Article

[123I]FP-CIT SPECT (DaTSCAN) may be a useful tool to differentiate between Parkinson's disease and vascular or drug-induced parkinsonisms: a meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 1369-+

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ene.12444

关键词

DaTSCAN; drug-induced parkinsonism; idiopathic Parkinson's disease; single photon emission computed tomography; unclear parkinsonism; vascular parkinsonism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purposeDifferentiating idiopathic Parkinson's disease from secondary parkinsonian syndromes is crucial since their management and prognosis differ considerably. Functional imaging of the dopaminergic pathway by means of [I-123]FP-CIT SPECT (DaTSCAN) might be useful in this regard, but its role is still controversial. The accuracy of DaTSCAN in the differential diagnosis between Parkinson's disease and vascular or drug-induced parkinsonism was therefore systematically reviewed. MethodsMEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for studies aiming to determine accuracy measures (sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, positive and negative likelihood ratios) of DaTSCAN in differentiating between Parkinson's disease and vascular or drug-induced parkinsonism. ResultsFive studies were included. Pooled accuracy measures in differentiating between Parkinson's disease and vascular or drug-induced parkinsonism were relatively high, with sensitivity and specificity values above 85% and 80%, respectively. ConclusionsDaTSCAN might accurately differentiate between early Parkinson's disease and secondary parkinsonian conditions, namely vascular or drug-induced, in patients with clinically unclear parkinsonism. However, all the studies reviewed here show several methodological limits, which prevent definitive conclusions on the role of DaTSCAN being drawn in this context. Further studies are needed to confirm our results and definitely evaluate the utility of DaTSCAN in differentiating between Parkinson's disease and vascular or drug-induced parkinsonism.

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

4.7
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