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
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
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.