This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objectives To provide the best possible evidence base for guiding driving decisions in Parkinson disease (PD), we performed a meta-analysis comparing patients with PD to healthy controls (HCs) on naturalistic, on-the-road, and simulator driving outcomes.
Methods Seven major databases were systematically searched (to January 2018) for studies comparing patients with PD to HCs on overall driving performance, with data analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.
Results Fifty studies comprising 5,410 participants (PD = 1,955, HC = 3,455) met eligibility criteria. Analysis found the odds of on-the-road test failure were 6.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.79–10.03) times higher and the odds of simulator crashes 2.63 (95% CI 1.64–4.22) times higher for people with PD, with poorer overall driving ratings also observed (standardized mean differences from 0.50 to 0.67). However, self-reported real-life crash involvement did not differ between people with PD and HCs (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.57–1.23, p = 0.38). Findings remained unchanged after accounting for any differences in age, sex, and driving exposure, and no moderating influence of disease severity was found.
Conclusions Our findings provide persuasive evidence for substantive driving impairment in PD, but offer little support for mandated PD-specific relicensure based on self-reported crash data alone, and highlight the need for objective measures of crash involvement.
Glossary
- CI=
- confidence interval;
- HC=
- healthy control;
- OR=
- odds ratio;
- OTR=
- on-the-road;
- PD=
- Parkinson disease;
- PRISMA=
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses;
- SMD=
- standardized mean difference;
- UPDRS-III=
- Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Part III
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received March 9, 2018.
- Accepted in final form June 8, 2018.
- © 2018 American Academy of Neurology
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.