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

Advanced Search

Main menu

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

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in

Search

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

Reply to Letter to the Editor

  • P Pollak, Joseph Fourier University Grenoble Franceppollak@ujf-grenoble.fr
  • P D Charles, N Van Blercom, P Krack, S L Lee, J Xie, G Besson, and A L Benabid
Submitted October 29, 2002

We thank Dr Montgomery for his comments and share his concern about the importance of adequately selecting parkinsonian patients for surgery. Dr Montgomery's remark deals with the use of regression and correlational analyses to study the predictive factors of outcome from bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation. While it is true that the regression analysis of the data is retrospective, the original patient enrollment, treatment, and data collection was performed prospectively. The calculation of the sensitivity, specificity, and confidence intervals would need considerably more patients, hardly compatible with this type of therapeutic procedure. The receiver-operating-characteristic curves proposed by Dr Montgomery are frequently used to assess the usefulness of diagnostic markers, but the method also has some disadvantages. [1] We think that univariate analysis is one of the most appropriate statistical methods for our study. We agree with the necessity of validating our model in another prospective study. We do not know if “the large majority of times, the specificity and sensitivity of protectors fall when tested prospectively” but it has been shown that it is not always true. [2]

Most studies of the surgical treatment of PD found that outcome from surgery are better in patients with levodopa-responsive motor symptoms. Welter et al. [3] also used regression analysis in their series of parkinsonian patients treated with subthalamic nucleus stimulation. In keeping with our results they found that the outcome of STN stimulation was excellent in levodopa-responsive forms of PD. Our results are consistent with the classical inclusion criteria for subthalamic nucleus stimulation and imply that the decision to operate on the oldest patients and/or patients with levodopa resistant motor symptoms should be carefully weighed. The other lesson from our experience is that parkinsonian patients with severe levodopa-induced motor complications may still be surgical candidates if a fair levodopa response is maintained, i.e. if their best on-motor score is low. This result is clinically sensible. The relative young age at the time of surgery could have been expected as a good predictor since young-onset PD is characterized by a good response to levodopa with minimal on-period axial or non-motor symptoms except fluctuations and dyskinesias. [4] Moreover, surgery related complications are more frequent in an elderly population.

References

1. Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiology. The architecture of clinical research. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1985.

2. Besson G, Robert C, Hommel M, Perret J. Is it clinically possible to distinguish non-hemorrhagic infarct from hemorrhagic stroke? Stroke 1995;26:1205-1209.

3. Welter ML, Houeto JL, Tezenas du Montcel S, Mesnage V, Bonnet AM,Pillon B, Arnulf I, Pidoux B, Dormont D, Cornu P, Agid Y. Clinical predictive factors of subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson's disease.Brain 2002;125:575-583.

4. Quinn N, Critchley P, Marsden CD. Young onset Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 1987;2:73-91.

Navigate back to article

Neurology: 98 (24)

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: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Neurology: Education
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

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

© 2022 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise