BACKGROUND: Enormous effort is being put into the identification and characterization of symptoms that may be used as predictive and progression markers in Parkinson's disease (PD). An impressive number of PD patients and individuals at risk for or in the prodromal stage of PD are currently followed in longitudinal studies; however, there does not exist an overview on the kind of markers evaluated and the assessments used. METHODS: Information on the design, sample size, evaluated markers and assessments of 21 studies of the Joint Programme - Neurodegenerative Disease Research BioLoC-PD working group were collected by questionnaire. The studies were classified into at risk/prodromal or clinical PD cohorts. The assessments were grouped into quantitative assessments, investigator-rated assessments, investigator interviews, patient-rated questionnaires and caregiver-rated questionnaires. RESULTS: Compilation of these data revealed an interesting consensus on evaluated markers, but there was an enormous variability of assessments. Furthermore, there is a remarkable similarity in the markers assessed and evaluation methods applied in the risk/prodromal and clinical PD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The inventory of the longitudinal cohorts that are part of the BioLoC-PD consortium reveals that there is a growing consensus on the markers that should be assessed in longitudinal cohort studies in PD. However, controversy still exists on the specific type of assessment. To allow comparison of data and common analyses it will be essential to harmonize scales and assessment outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Enormous effort is being put into the identification and characterization of symptoms that may be used as predictive and progression markers in Parkinson's disease (PD). An impressive number of PDpatients and individuals at risk for or in the prodromal stage of PD are currently followed in longitudinal studies; however, there does not exist an overview on the kind of markers evaluated and the assessments used. METHODS: Information on the design, sample size, evaluated markers and assessments of 21 studies of the Joint Programme - Neurodegenerative Disease Research BioLoC-PD working group were collected by questionnaire. The studies were classified into at risk/prodromal or clinical PD cohorts. The assessments were grouped into quantitative assessments, investigator-rated assessments, investigator interviews, patient-rated questionnaires and caregiver-rated questionnaires. RESULTS: Compilation of these data revealed an interesting consensus on evaluated markers, but there was an enormous variability of assessments. Furthermore, there is a remarkable similarity in the markers assessed and evaluation methods applied in the risk/prodromal and clinical PD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The inventory of the longitudinal cohorts that are part of the BioLoC-PD consortium reveals that there is a growing consensus on the markers that should be assessed in longitudinal cohort studies in PD. However, controversy still exists on the specific type of assessment. To allow comparison of data and common analyses it will be essential to harmonize scales and assessment outcomes.
Authors: Katrina Gwinn; Karen K David; Christine Swanson-Fischer; Roger Albin; Coryse St Hillaire-Clarke; Beth-Anne Sieber; Codrin Lungu; F DuBois Bowman; Roy N Alcalay; Debra Babcock; Ted M Dawson; Richard B Dewey; Tatiana Foroud; Dwight German; Xuemei Huang; Vlad Petyuk; Judith A Potashkin; Rachel Saunders-Pullman; Margaret Sutherland; David R Walt; Andrew B West; Jing Zhang; Alice Chen-Plotkin; Clemens R Scherzer; David E Vaillancourt; Liana S Rosenthal Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Alice S Chen-Plotkin; Roger Albin; Roy Alcalay; Debra Babcock; Vikram Bajaj; Dubois Bowman; Alex Buko; Jesse Cedarbaum; Daniel Chelsky; Mark R Cookson; Ted M Dawson; Richard Dewey; Tatiana Foroud; Mark Frasier; Dwight German; Katrina Gwinn; Xuemei Huang; Catherine Kopil; Thomas Kremer; Shirley Lasch; Ken Marek; Jarrod A Marto; Kalpana Merchant; Brit Mollenhauer; Anna Naito; Judith Potashkin; Alyssa Reimer; Liana S Rosenthal; Rachel Saunders-Pullman; Clemens R Scherzer; Todd Sherer; Andrew Singleton; Margaret Sutherland; Ines Thiele; Marcel van der Brug; Kendall Van Keuren-Jensen; David Vaillancourt; David Walt; Andrew West; Jing Zhang Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Stefanie Lerche; Sebastian Heinzel; Guido W Alves; Paolo Barone; Stefanie Behnke; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Henk Berendse; Bastiaan R Bloem; David Burn; Richard Dodel; Donald G Grosset; Geraldine Hipp; Michele T Hu; Meike Kasten; Rejko Krüger; Inga Liepelt-Scarfone; Walter Maetzler; Marcello Moccia; Brit Mollenhauer; Wolfgang Oertel; Benjamin Roeben; Uwe Walter; Karin Wirdefeldt; Daniela Berg Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Sebastian Heinzel; Benjamin Roeben; Yoav Ben-Shlomo; Stefanie Lerche; Guido Alves; Paolo Barone; Stefanie Behnke; Henk W Berendse; Bastiaan R Bloem; David Burn; Richard Dodel; Donald G Grosset; Michele Hu; Meike Kasten; Rejko Krüger; Marcello Moccia; Brit Mollenhauer; Wolfgang Oertel; Ulrike Suenkel; Uwe Walter; Karin Wirdefeldt; Inga Liepelt-Scarfone; Walter Maetzler; Daniela Berg Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Catherine J Moody; Derick Mitchell; Grace Kiser; Dag Aarsland; Daniela Berg; Carol Brayne; Alberto Costa; Mohammad A Ikram; Gail Mountain; Jonathan D Rohrer; Charlotte E Teunissen; Leonard H van den Berg; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 4.677