Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit New Manuscript
    • Submit Revised Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Education
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Neurology Future Forecasting Series
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit New Manuscript
    • Submit Revised Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Neurology Video Journal Club
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

October 23, 2001; 57 (8) Brief Communications

Improved accuracy of clinical diagnosis of Lewy body Parkinson’s disease

Andrew J. Hughes, Susan E. Daniel, Andrew J. Lees
First published October 23, 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.57.8.1497
Andrew J. Hughes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Daniel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew J. Lees
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Improved accuracy of clinical diagnosis of Lewy body Parkinson’s disease
Andrew J. Hughes, Susan E. Daniel, Andrew J. Lees
Neurology Oct 2001, 57 (8) 1497-1499; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.57.8.1497

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
1924

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Abstract

The authors studied the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic PD (IPD) in 100 consecutive clinically diagnosed cases that came to neuropathological examination. Ninety fulfilled pathologic criteria for IPD. Ten were misdiagnosed: multiple system atrophy (six), progressive supranuclear palsy (two), post-encephalitic parkinsonism (one), and vascular parkinsonism (one). Assessment of the clinical features suggests that an accuracy of 90% may be the highest that can be expected using current diagnostic criteria.

The diagnosis of idiopathic PD (IPD) remains essentially clinical. Two clinicopathologic studies in the early 1990s both found the accuracy of clinical diagnosis to be only 76%.1,2⇓ A subsequent study in 1997 suggested an improvement to 84%.3 To assess whether the diagnostic accuracy has improved further, we have studied a more recent series of 100 cases of clinically diagnosed IPD.

Patients and methods.

One hundred consecutive cases with clinically diagnosed IPD at the time of the last assessment prior to death were studied. The methodology was identical to our initial study in 1992.2 The 100 cases were collected at the United Kingdom PD Society Brain Research Center (UKPDSBRC) in London between 1996 and 1998, from all over the UK. Sixty-one were preregistered brain donors and had been prospectively assessed annually by clinicians associated with the UKPDSBRC. Eighty-six cases had been followed by neurologists, seven by geriatricians, and seven by internal medicine specialists.

The pathologic diagnoses were made by one neuropathologist (SED) using standard criteria.2,4,5⇓⇓

The clinical features of each case were abstracted from the case records by one of us (AJH), and the diagnosis reevaluated according to three different sets of clinical criteria: the UKPDSBRC clinical diagnostic criteria6; those proposed by Calne et al.7 (clinically definite category); and those proposed more recently by Gelb et al.8 (clinically possible and clinically probable categories). The clinical features were also assessed according to a selected set of features (asymmetrical onset, no atypical clinical features for IPD, and no possible etiology for another parkinsonian syndrome) which have been suggested to give the highest proportion of true IPD cases (93%).9

Results.

The mean age at onset of disease was 62.2 years (range 29 to 82), mean disease duration 15 years (range 3 to 35), and mean Hoehn and Yahr stage at death was 4.6 (range 3 to 5). Fifty-six patients were men and 44 women. The last clinical assessment was mean 1.2 years before death (range 0.1 to 6). Ninety cases fulfilled the pathologic criteria for IPD. The neuropathological diagnoses in the other 10 cases were multiple system atrophy (6), progressive supranuclear palsy (2), neurofibrillary tangle pathology (1; probable postencephalitic parkinsonism), and extensive cerebrovascular disease with no other pathologic explanation for parkinsonism (1).

When the clinical features were assessed according to the different sets of clinical diagnostic criteria, 12 patients did not fulfill the UKPDSBRC clinical diagnostic criteria for IPD6 (see table). Nine had exclusion criteria (four with early severe dementia, three had neuroleptic treatment at the time of onset of parkinsonism, one had no response to an adequate trial of levodopa, and one had vertical supranuclear gaze palsy). Three other patients had inadequate supportive criteria. Nine of these 12 had pathologic IPD, whereas three had other parkinsonian syndromes. Thus the application of these diagnostic criteria improved the diagnostic accuracy only slightly, with 81 of the remaining 88 patients (92%) having pathologic IPD. Using the criteria for clinically definite IPD proposed by Calne et al.,7 11 patients were rejected, nine with IPD and two with other parkinsonian syndromes. The diagnostic accuracy was thus 91%, with 81 of the remaining 89 patients having pathologic IPD. The criteria proposed by Gelb et al.8 for clinically possible IPD rejected 16 cases, 12 with IPD and four not having IPD; whereas for clinically probable IPD, 29 cases were rejected, 25 with IPD and the same four cases without IPD. The diagnostic accuracy was thus not increased by using the more stringent criteria for clinically probable IPD (92%) compared to clinically possible IPD (93%), despite more than double the number of true IPD case being rejected. Using the three selected clinical features previously suggested to give the highest proportion of true IPD cases,9 60 of the 67 cases with all three features present had pathologic IPD. Thus the diagnostic accuracy (90%) was not increased despite 30 of the 90 confirmed IPD cases being rejected. Six cases without IPD failed to be detected by any of the criteria.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Diagnostic value of different diagnostic criteria in improving diagnostic accuracy in 100 patients clinically diagnosed with IPD and followed until death*

Discussion.

There are potential weaknesses inherent in all clinicopathological series which may concentrate interesting, extensively investigated, or unusual cases and select for institutionalized patients and therefore for more severe disability. Referral bias and the length of follow-up also limit the extent to which these results can be generalized to other clinical settings, particularly to early disease. Nevertheless this study shows a significant improvement (14%, 95% CI 3.8 to 24.2, p = 0.008) in the clinical diagnostic accuracy of IPD over the last decade and suggests a greater awareness among clinicians of the pitfalls in diagnosis of IPD. In the present series, multiple system atrophy was responsible for the majority of the false positive cases; but in two previous series, progressive supranuclear palsy was the disorder most likely to be clinically mistaken for IPD.2,3⇓ Similarly, there has been a reduction in cases with nigral atrophy without inclusions, Alzheimer-type pathology (tangles and plaques), neurofibrillary tangle pathology, and vascular parkinsonism being misdiagnosed as IPD.1-3⇓⇓

Although no attempt was made to establish the criteria referring clinicians used to diagnose IPD, 12% of patients failed to satisfy the clinical diagnostic criteria most familiar to those treating IPD in the UK.6 This might suggest that clinicians looked at the overall picture and did not negate the diagnosis even in the presence of accepted exclusion criteria, e.g., early severe dementia or neuroleptic treatment at the time of onset of parkinsonism. That the diagnostic accuracy was not improved by rigidly applying these criteria would support this approach. In our study from almost 10 years ago, the number of cases not satisfying the same diagnostic criteria was similar at 11%.2 However in that series, the removal of such cases increased diagnostic accuracy from 76% to 82% because, in contrast to the present series, most of the rejected cases did not have IPD.2 This suggests that clinicians are now interpreting atypical clinical features more appropriately.

The retrospective application of different diagnostic criteria resulted in a similar diagnostic accuracy to the treating clinicians. Some led to many more cases of true IPD being excluded with no gain in diagnostic accuracy. It is interesting that only four of the 10 false positive cases were rejected by the different sets of diagnostic criteria. This suggests that although rigorous application of diagnostic criteria may decrease false positive cases, a number of cases will still mimic IPD sufficiently closely to not be rejected by current diagnostic criteria. These results should not be taken as an assessment or comparison of the different diagnostic criteria in a wider setting. Comparing their ability to improve diagnostic accuracy in patients with clinically diagnosed IPD at death has little or no relationship to their applicability in other clinical settings, such as early disease or when the diagnosis is made by clinicians with different expertise to those associated with the UKPDSBRC.

It is possible that specialists in movement disorders might be more accurate at diagnosing IPD. However, in the clinicopathological study by Litvan et al.,10 the positive predictive value for the diagnosis of Lewy body disease (including both IPD and dementia with Lewy bodies) by experts in movement disorders at the last clinical visit prior to death was only 77.4%. For the primary neurologists, the positive predictive value was 70.3%. In that study, the cases were collected from several different centers, and the proportion of cases with other parkinsonian syndromes may have adversely affected the diagnostic accuracy.10 In any case, the present finding of a diagnostic accuracy of 90% compares favorably with available data.

Despite the shortcomings of available diagnostic criteria we would emphasis that in routine clinical practice it is possible for neurologists to accurately diagnose the large majority of patients with IPD. The failure to improve the diagnostic accuracy with the retrospective application of diagnostic criteria suggests that a diagnostic accuracy of 90% may be the highest that can be expected using current clinical diagnostic criteria. This needs to be taken into consideration in the interpretation and design of clinical trials.

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Ms. Linda Kilford and Ms. Hardev Sangha for their technical expertise, and Dr. Yoav Ben–Shlomo for valuable advice.

  • Received January 12, 2001.
  • Accepted July 2, 2001.

References

  1. ↵
    Rajput AH, Rozdilsky B, Rajput A. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis in parkinsonism—a prospective study. Can J Neurol Sci . 1991; 18: 275–278.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L, Lees AJ. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease: a clinicopathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1992; 55: 181–184.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Ansorge O, Lees AJ, Daniel SE. Update on the accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord . 1997; 12 (suppl 1): 96.Abstract.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    Oppenheimer DR. Diseases of the basal ganglia, cerebellum and motor neurons. In: Adams JH, Corsellis JAN, Duchen, eds. Greenfield’s neuropathology. 4th ed. New York: Wiley; 1984:699–747.
  5. ↵
    Hauw JJ, Daniel SE, Dickson D, et al. Preliminary NINDS neuropathologic criteria for Steele–Richardson–Olszewski syndrome (progressive supranuclear palsy). Neurology . 1994; 44: 2015–2019.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Gibb WRG, Lees AJ. The relevance of the Lewy body to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry . 1988; 51: 745–752.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Calne DB, Snow BJ, Lee C. Criteria for diagnosing Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol . 1992; 32: (suppl) S125–S127.
  8. ↵
    Gelb GJ, Oliver E, Gilman S. Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol . 1999; 56: 33–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Hughes AJ, Ben–Shlomo Y, Daniel SE, Lees AJ. What features improve the accuracy of clinical diagnosis in Parkinson’s disease: A clinicopathologic study. Neurology . 1992; 42: 1142–1146.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Litvan I, MacIntyre A, Goetz CG, et al. Accuracy of the clinical diagnosis of Lewy body disease, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia with Lewy bodies: a clinico-pathologic study. Arch Neurol . 1998; 55: 969–978.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract

Letters: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and methods.
    • Results.
    • Discussion.
    • Acknowledgments
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Safety in Guillain-Barré Syndrome, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, and Multifocal Motor Neuropathy

Dr. Jeffrey Allen and Dr. Nicholas Purcell

► Watch

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.

Topics Discussed

  • Diagnostic test assessment
  • Dementia with Lewy bodies
  • Parkinson's disease/Parkinsonism

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published

Recommended articles

  • Views & Reviews
    Do published criteria improve clinical diagnostic accuracy in multiple system atrophy?
    Y. Osaki, Y. Ben-Shlomo, G.K. Wenning et al.
    Neurology, November 26, 2002
  • Current Concepts and Controversies: Articles
    Issues in the early diagnosis of Parkinson's disease
    William C. Koller, Erwin B. Montgomery et al.
    Neurology, July 01, 1997
  • Articles
    Accuracy of four clinical diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of neurodegenerative dementias
    O.L. Lopez, I. Litvan, K.E. Catt et al.
    Neurology, October 01, 1999
  • Articles
    Brain parenchyma sonography discriminates Parkinson’s disease and atypical parkinsonian syndromes
    U. Walter, L. Niehaus, T. Probst et al.
    Neurology, January 14, 2003
Neurology: 100 (13)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Education
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2023 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise