Abstract
The need for quantitation of parkinsonian symptoms in relation to drug treatment has been recognized for many years (Schwab and Prichard 1951). The advent of effective therapy has augmented the need, now that we are in an era of ever-expanding novel therapeutic agents, combined with recognition of a wider variety of deficits (such as dementia), and experience with problematic adverse reactions (such as fluctuations in response). Besides making reliable sensitive assessment more important, complications such as dementia and fluctuations in response make the process of evaluation more difficult.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alba A, Trainor FS, Ritter W, Dacso MM (1968) A clinical disability rating for parkinsonian patients. J Chronic Dis 21: 507–522
Angel RW, Alston W, Garland H (1971) L-Dopa and error correction time in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 21: 1255–1260
Canter GH, de la Torre R, Mier M (1961) A method for evaluating disability in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Nerv Ment Dis 133: 143–147
Diamond SG, Markham CH (1983) Evaluating the evaluations—or how to weigh the scales of parkinsonian disability. Neurology 33: 1098–1099
Duvoisin RC (1970) The evaluation of extra-pyramidal disease. In: de Ajuriagerra J (ed) Monoamines, noyaux gris centraux et syndrome de Parkinson. Masson, Paris, pp 313–325
Fahn S, Bressman SB (1984) Should levodopa therapy for parkinsonism be started early or late? Evidence against early treatment. Can J Neurol Sci 11: 200–205
Fahn S, and Elton RL (1987) Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne D, Goldstein M (eds) Recent Developments in Parkinson’s disease, Vol 2. Macmillan Healthcare Information, Florham Park, pp 153–163
Hietanen M, Teravainen H, Tsui JK, Calne DB (1987) The pegboard as a measurement of parkinsonian motor deficit. Neurology 37 (Suppl 1): 266.
Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology (Minneap) 17: 427–442
Larsen A, Calne S, Calne DB (1984) Assessment of Parkinson’s disease. Clin Neuro-pharmacol 7: 165–169
Lees, AJ, Shaw KM, Kohout LJ et al. (1977) Deprenyl in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 2: 791–795
Lieberman A, Dziatolowski M, Gopinathan G et al. (1980) Evaluation of Parkinson’s disease. In: Goldstein M, Calne, DB, Lieberman A, Thomer MD (ed) Ergot compounds and brain function: neuroendocrine and neuropsychiatric aspects. Raven, New York, pp 277–286
Marsden CD, Schachter M (1981) Assessment of extrapyramidal disorders. In: Lader MH, Richens A (eds) Methods in clinical pharmacology—central nervous system. Macmillan, London, pp 89–111
Montgomery GK, Reynolds NC, Warren RM (1985) Qualitative assessment of Parkinson’s disease: study of reliability and data reduction with an abbreviated Columbia scale. Clin Neuropharmacol 8: 83–92
Parkes JD, Zilkha KJ, Calver DM, Knill-Jones RP (1970) Controlled trial of amantadine hydrochloride in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet 1: 259–262
Potvin AR, Tourtelotte WW (eds) ( 1985 a) Quantitative examination of neurologic functions, vol I. CRC, Boca Raton
Potvin AR, Tourtelotte WW (eds) ( 1985 b) Quantitative examination of neurologic functions, vol II. CRC, Boca Raton
Schachter M, Marsden CD, Parkes JD, Jenner P, Testa B (1980) Deprenyl in the management of response fluctuations in patients with Parkinson’s disease on levodopa. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 43: 1016–1021
Schwab RS, England AC (1969) Projection technique for evaluating surgery in Parkinson’s disease. In: Gillingham FJ, Danoldson IML (eds) Third symposium on Parkinson’s disease. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 152–157
Schwab RS, Prichard JS (1951) An assessment of therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 65: 489–501
Teräväinen H, Calne DB (1980) Quantitative assessment of parkinsonian deficits. In: Rinne UK, Klinger M, Stamm G (eds) Parkinson’s disease—current progress, problems and management. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 145–162
Teräväinen H, Calne DB (1981) Assessment of hypokinesia in parkinsonism. J Neural Transm 51: 149–159
Velasco F, Velasco M (1973) A quantitative evaluation of the effects of L-dopa on Parkinson’s disease. Neuropharmacology 12: 89–99
Webster DD (1964) The dynamic quantitation of spasticity with automated integrals of passive motor resistance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 5: 900–908
Webster DD (1966) Rigidity in extrapyramidal disease. J Neurosurg 24 (Suppl 2): 299–309
Webster DD (1968) Clinical analysis of the disability in Parkinson’s disease. Mod Treat 5: 257–282
Webster DD (1981) Assessment of deficit function in Parkinson’s disease. In: Cohen BA (ed) Frontiers of engineering in health care proceedings, vol 3. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 28: 599–606
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Teräväinen, H., Tsui, J., Calne, D.B. (1989). Evaluation of Parkinson’s Disease. In: Calne, D.B. (eds) Drugs for the Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology, vol 88. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73899-9_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-73899-9_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-73901-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-73899-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive