Advertisement

Parkinson’s Disease Multimodal Complex Treatment improves motor symptoms, depression and quality of life

  • Raphael Scherbaum
  • Elke Hartelt
  • Manuel Kinkel
  • Ralf Gold
  • Siegfried Muhlack
  • Lars TöngesEmail author
Original Communication

Abstract

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is the world’s fastest growing neurological disorder disabling patients through a broad range of motor and non-motor symptoms. For the clinical management, a multidisciplinary approach has increasingly been shown to be beneficial. In Germany, inpatient Parkinson’s Disease Multimodal Complex Treatment (PD-MCT) is a well-established and frequent approach, although data on its effectiveness are rare. We conducted a prospective real-world observational study in 47 subjects [age (M ± SD): 68.5 ± 9.0 years, disease duration: 8.5 ± 5.3 years, modified Hoehn and Yahr stage (median, IQR): 3, 2.5–3] aiming at evaluating the effectiveness of 14-day PD-MCT in terms of quality of life (Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, EuroQol), motor [Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS III], Timed Up and Go Test, Purdue Pegboard Test) and non-motor symptoms (revised Beck Depression Inventory). Six weeks after hospital discharge, a follow-up examination was performed. PD patients with a predominantly moderate disability level benefited from PD-MCT in terms of health-related quality of life, motor symptoms and non-motor symptoms (depression). Significant improvements were found for social support, emotional well-being and bodily discomfort domains of health-related quality of life. Sustainable improvement occurred for motor symptoms and the subjective evaluation of health state. We found a higher probability of motor response especially for patients with moderate motor impairment (MDS-UPDRS III ≥ 33). In conclusion, Parkinson’s Disease Multimodal Complex Treatment improves motor symptoms, depression and quality of life. A more detailed selection of patients who will benefit best from this intervention should be examined in future studies.

Keywords

Parkinson’s disease Multidisciplinary care Inpatient Quality of life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the patients that took part. We particularly acknowledge the work of the therapeutic team of the Neurology Department at St. Josef-Hospital Bochum: Serpil Er, Sabine Dreifert, Martin Enders, Maximilian Hansmann, Stefanie Bojarzin, Karin Göpferich, Friederike Khatib, Tobias Kramer, Christian Prehn and Simon Sturm.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: LT and MK; methodology: EH, LT, and RS; data collection: EH and RS; statistical evaluation and interpretation: EH, LT, and RS; writing—original draft preparation: RS and LT; writing—review and editing: EH, RG, SM, and MK; project administration and supervision: LT.

Funding

This study was funded by Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung Bundesverband (Grant no. 33.17-92907).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard statement

Ethical approval was given by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Ruhr University Bochum (approval number 17–6119). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00013361). Data were saved in a pseudonymized way and were processed according to local legal conditions.

Informed consent

All patients gave written informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Supplementary material

415_2019_9657_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (147 kb)
Supplementary file1 (PDF 146 kb)
415_2019_9657_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (273 kb)
We provide electronic supplementary material, containing a description of PD-MCT components and four supplementary tables (Table S1 Components of Parkinson’s Disease Multimodal Complex Treatment, Table S2 Differences in demographics and clinical characteristics between study completers and dropouts at baseline, Table S3 Values of outcomes at baseline, discharge and follow-up, differences and statistical results of rmANOVA, Table S4 Patient’s Global Impression of Change) (PDF 273 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Feigin VL, Abajobir AA, Abate KH et al (2017) Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders during 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet Neurol 16(11):877–897.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30299-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dorsey ER, Sherer T, Okun MS et al (2018) The emerging evidence of the Parkinson Pandemic. J Parkinsons Dis 8(s1):3–8.  https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-181474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poewe W (2017) Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Dis Primers 3:17014.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2017.14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schapira AHV, Chaudhuri KR, Jenner P (2017) Non-motor features of Parkinson disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 18(7):435–450.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.62 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martinez-Martin P, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Kurtis MM et al (2011) The impact of non-motor symptoms on health-related quality of life of patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 26(3):399–406.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23462 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Marck MA, Kalf JG, Sturkenboom IHWM et al (2009) Multidisciplinary care for patients with Parkinson's disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 15:219–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-8020(09)70819-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giladi N, Manor Y, Hilel A et al (2014) Interdisciplinary teamwork for the treatment of people with Parkinson's disease and their families. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep 14(11):493.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-014-0493-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhidayasiri R, Jitkritsadakul O, Boonrod N et al (2015) What is the evidence to support home environmental adaptation in Parkinson's disease? A call for multidisciplinary interventions. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 21(10):1127–1132.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.08.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Post B, van der Eijk M, Munneke M et al (2011) Multidisciplinary care for Parkinson's disease: not if, but how! Postgrad Med J 87(1031):575–578.  https://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.2011.241604rep CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Radder DLM, Nonnekes J, Bloem BR (2018) Intensive inpatient rehabilitation for persons with Parkinson's disease: last resort or pre-emptive strike? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 89(8):795–796.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2017-317812 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Marck MA, Bloem BR, Borm GF et al (2013) Effectiveness of multidisciplinary care for Parkinson's disease: A randomized, controlled trial. Mov Disord 28(5):605–611.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25194 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eggers C, Dano R, Schill J et al (2018) Patient-centered integrated healthcare improves quality of life in Parkinson's disease patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Neurol 265(4):764–773.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-018-8761-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Marck MA, Munneke M, Mulleners W et al (2013) Integrated multidisciplinary care in Parkinson's disease: a non-randomised, controlled trial (IMPACT). Lancet Neurol 12(10):947–956.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70196-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan SB, Williams AF, Kelly D (2014) Effectiveness of multidisciplinary interventions to improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 51(1):166–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.03.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rochester L, Espay AJ (2015) Multidisciplinary rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: a milestone with future challenges. Mov Disord 30(8):1011–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26277 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bloem BR, de Vries NM, Ebersbach G (2015) Nonpharmacological treatments for patients with Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 30(11):1504–1520.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ellis T, Katz DI, White DK et al (2008) Effectiveness of an inpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for people with Parkinson disease. Phys Ther 88(7):812–819.  https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070265 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Müller T, Öhm G, Eilert K et al (2017) Benefit on motor and non-motor behavior in a specialized unit for Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm 124(6):715–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berli B, Dalen R, Oldren B et al (2019) Effects of an inpatient multidisciplinary intervention on physical ability and self perceived health status in multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease patients. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 7(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9096.1000504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Laurini A et al (2015) In-patient multidisciplinary rehabilitation for Parkinson's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Mov Disord 30(8):1050–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26256 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferrazzoli D, Ortelli P, Zivi I et al (2018) Efficacy of intensive multidisciplinary rehabilitation in Parkinson's disease: a randomised controlled study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 89(8):828–835.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2017-316437 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marumoto K, Yokoyama K, Inoue T et al (2019) Inpatient enhanced multidisciplinary care effects on the quality of life for parkinson disease: a quasi-randomized controlled trial. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 32(4):186–194.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988719841721 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richter D, Bartig D, Muhlack S et al (2019) Dynamics of Parkinson's disease multimodal complex treatment in Germany from 2010–2016: patient characteristics, access to treatment, and formation of regional centers. Cells 8(2):151.  https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8020151 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S et al (2013) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud 50(5):587–592.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hughes AJ, Daniel SE, Kilford L et al (1992) Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson's disease: A clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 55(3):181–184.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.55.3.181 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Postuma RB, Berg D, Stern M et al (2015) MDS clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 30(12):1591–1601.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26424 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12(3):189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (2018) OPS Version 2019: Band I: Systematisches Verzeichnis. Deutsche Krankenhaus Verlagsgesellschaft, DüsseldorfGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (2016) Idiopathisches Parkinson-Syndrom, Entwicklungsstufe: S3: Stand: 1. Januar 2016, Gültig bis: 31. Dezember 2020, AWMF-Register-nummer: 030/010. https://www.dgn.org/images/red_leitlinien/LL_2016/PDFs_Download/030010_LL_langfassung_ips_2016.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2019
  30. 30.
    30. SHJ Keus M Munneke M Graziano et al 2014 European Physiotherapy Guideline for Parkinson’s disease KNGF/ParkinsonNet The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kalf JG, de Swart BJM, Bonnier M et al. (2011) Guidelines for speech-language therapy in Parkinson’s disease. https://www.parkinsonnet.info/media/14829977/dutch_slp_guidelines-final.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2019
  32. 32.
    Sturkenboom IHWM, Thijssen MCE, Gons-van Elsacker JJ, Jansen IJH, Maasdam A, Schulten M, Vijver-Visser D, Steultjens EJM, Bloem BR, Munneke M (2011) Guidelines for occupational therapy in Parkinson’s disease rehabilitation. https://www.parkinsonnet.info/media/14820461/ot_guidelines_final-npf__3_.pdf. Accessed 24 Sep 2019
  33. 33.
    Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R et al (1995) The development and validation of a short measure of functioning and well being for individuals with Parkinson's disease. Qual Life Res 4(3):241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R, Peto V et al (1997) The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson's disease summary index score. Age Ageing 26(5):353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Berger K, Broll S, Winkelmann J et al (1999) Untersuchung zur Reliabilität der deutschen Version des PDQ-39: Ein krankheitsspezifischer Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Lebensqualität von Parkinson-Patienten (Reliability Analysis of the PDQ-39 (German Version)). Akt Neurol 26(04):180–184.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1017628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16(3):199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S et al (2012) Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 15(5):708–715.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ludwig K, Graf von der Schulenburg J-M, Greiner W (2018) German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics 36(6):663–674.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0615-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality. Neurology 17(5):427.  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.17.5.427 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O et al (2004) Movement disorder society task force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: status and recommendations. Mov Disord 19(9):1020–1028.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20213 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jankovic J, McDermott M, Carter J et al (1990) Variable expression of Parkinson's disease: a base-line analysis of the DATATOP cohort. The Parkinson Study Group. Neurology 40(10):1529–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR et al (2008) Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): Scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord 23(15):2129–2170.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22340 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Martinez-Martin P, Ray Chaudhuri K (2018) Comprehensive grading of Parkinson's disease using motor and non-motor assessments: addressing a key unmet need. Expert Rev Neurother 18(1):41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2018.1400383 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Bravo G et al (1995) The Purdue Pegboard test: normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disabil Rehabil 17(5):217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tiffin J, Asher EJ (1948) The Purdue pegboard; norms and studies of reliability and validity. J Appl Psychol 32(3):234–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Beck AT, Steer RA, Hautzinger M (2001) Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI): Testhandbuch, 2., überarb. Aufl., 1. Nachdr. Huber, BernGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kuhner C, Burger C, Keller F et al (2007) Reliability and validity of the Revised Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). Results from German samples (Reliabilitat und Validitat des revidierten Beck-Depressionsinventars (BDI-II). Befunde aus deutschsprachigen Stichproben). Nervenarzt 78(6):651–656.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00115-006-2098-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M et al (1961) An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 4:561–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Buckley TC, Parker JD, Heggie J (2001) A psychometric evaluation of the BDI-II in treatment-seeking substance abusers. J Subst Abuse Treat 20(3):197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Vanheule S, Desmet M, Groenvynck H et al (2008) The factor structure of the beck depression inventory-II: an evaluation. Assessment 15(2):177–187.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107311261 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    51. W Guy 1976 ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology Rockville MidlandGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    International Parkinson and Movement Disorders Society MDS-UPDRS Training Program & Exercise. https://mds.movementdisorders.org/updrs/. Accessed 24 Sep 2019
  53. 53.
    Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V et al (2005) The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53(4):695–699.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Field A (2018) Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics, 5th edn. SAGE, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stebbins GT, Goetz CG, Burn DJ et al (2013) How to identify tremor dominant and postural instability/gait difficulty groups with the movement disorder society unified Parkinson's disease rating scale: comparison with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. Mov Disord 28(5):668–670.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.25383 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schrag A, Barone P, Brown RG et al (2007) Depression rating scales in Parkinson's disease: critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 22(8):1077–1092.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21333 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R (2001) Determining minimally important differences for the PDQ-39 Parkinson's disease questionnaire. Age Ageing 30(4):299–302.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/30.4.299 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Jenkinson C, Clarke C, Gray R et al (2015) Comparing results from long and short form versions of the Parkinson's disease questionnaire in a longitudinal study. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 21(11):1312–1316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.09.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hagell P, Nilsson MH (2009) The 39-itesm Parkinson's disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): is it a unidimensional construct? Ther Adv Neurol Disord 2(4):205–214.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1756285609103726 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nilsson MH, Westergren A, Carlsson G et al (2010) Uncovering indicators of the international classification of functioning, disability, and health from the 39-item Parkinson's disease questionnaire. Parkinsons Dis 2010:984673.  https://doi.org/10.4061/2010/984673 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Uc EY, Doerschug KC, Magnotta V et al (2014) Phase I/II randomized trial of aerobic exercise in Parkinson disease in a community setting. Neurology 83(5):413–425.  https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000000644 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wu P-L, Lee M, Huang T-T (2017) Effectiveness of physical activity on patients with depression and Parkinson's disease: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 12(7):e0181515.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181515 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Goodwin VA, Richards SH, Taylor RS et al (2008) The effectiveness of exercise interventions for people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mov Disord 23(5):631–640.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21922 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Gotham AM, Brown RG, Marsden CD (1986) Depression in Parkinson's disease: a quantitative and qualitative analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 49(4):381–389.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.49.4.381 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Myslobodsky M, Lalonde FM, Hicks L (2001) Are patients with Parkinson's disease suicidal? J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 14(3):120–124.  https://doi.org/10.1177/089198870101400304 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schrag A, Sampaio C, Counsell N et al (2006) Minimal clinically important change on the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. Mov Disord 21(8):1200–1207.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20914 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hauser RA, Auinger P (2011) Determination of minimal clinically important change in early and advanced Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 26(5):813–818.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.23638 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Shulman LM, Gruber-Baldini AL, Anderson KE et al (2010) The clinically important difference on the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. Arch Neurol 67(1):64–70.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archneurol.2009.295 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Horváth K, Aschermann Z, Ács P et al (2015) Minimal clinically important difference on the Motor Examination part of MDS-UPDRS. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 21(12):1421–1426.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.10.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Maetzler W, Liepelt I, Berg D (2009) Progression of Parkinson's disease in the clinical phase: potential markers. Lancet Neurol 8(12):1158–1171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70291-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    DE Hinkle W Wiersma SG Jurs 2004 Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lang AE, Obeso JA (2004) Challenges in Parkinson's disease: restoration of the nigrostriatal dopamine system is not enough. Lancet Neurol 3(5):309–316.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00740-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rovini E, Maremmani C, Cavallo F (2017) How wearable sensors can support Parkinson's disease diagnosis and treatment: a systematic review. Front Neurosci 11:555.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00555 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Espay AJ, Bonato P, Nahab FB et al (2016) Technology in Parkinson's disease: challenges and opportunities. Mov Disord 31(9):1272–1282.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.26642 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Tickle-Degnen L, Ellis T, Saint-Hilaire MH et al (2010) Self-management rehabilitation and health-related quality of life in Parkinson's disease: a randomized controlled trial. Mov Disord 25(2):194–204.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22940 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Goetz CG, Leurgans S, Raman R et al (2000) Objective changes in motor function during placebo treatment in PD. Neurology 54(3):710–714.  https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.54.3.710 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    La de Fuente-Fernández R, Ruth TJ, Sossi V et al (2001) Expectation and dopamine release: mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease. Science 293(5532):1164–1166.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060937 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chaudhuri KR, Martinez-Martin P, Brown RG et al (2007) The metric properties of a novel non-motor symptoms scale for Parkinson's disease: Results from an international pilot study. Mov Disord 22(13):1901–1911.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21596 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schrag A, Hovris A, Morley D et al (2006) Caregiver-burden in parkinson's disease is closely associated with psychiatric symptoms, falls, and disability. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 12(1):35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2005.06.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Prakash KM, Nadkarni NV, Lye W-K et al (2016) The impact of non-motor symptoms on the quality of life of Parkinson's disease patients: a longitudinal study. Eur J Neurol 23(5):854–860.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.12950 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurologySt. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr UniversityBochumGermany
  2. 2.Psychiatrische GutachtenpraxisBochumGermany
  3. 3.Neurodegeneration Research, Protein Research Unit Ruhr (PURE)Ruhr UniversityBochumGermany

Personalised recommendations