Advertisement

The Hoehn and Yahr Rating Scale for Parkinson’s Disease

  • J. M. Rabey
  • A. D. Korczyn
Conference paper

Abstract

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a complicated disease in which a number of theoretical and practical considerations on how best to assess the clinical deficit have been published [1–3]. In addition, the utilization of levodopa or dopamine agonists produces a large array of side effects which superimpose upon the motor fluctuations frequently seen in these patients, complicating even more the precise evaluation of disability. Since the introduction of levodopa, a number of clinical rating systems have been suggested and continue to be developed, suggesting that no single scale is completely satisfactory (Table 1). These scales attempt to measure symptoms, signs, and/or functional disability. Subjective methods of assessment of PD include: (a) clinical rating scale, (b) self-rating scale, and (c) functional disability. Simple objective methods include: (a) gait measurements, (b) finger movements, (c) reaction time (computerized), and (d) movement time (computerized). In the present paper, it is our purpose to review the Hoehn and Yahr scale [4], published in 1967, which is the most popular scale used worldwide for the staging of the functional disability associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Keywords

Functional Disability Motor Fluctuation Levodopa Therapy Clinical Rating Scale Axial Involvement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Marsden CD, Schachter M (1981) Assessment of extrapyramidal disorders. Br J Clin Pharmacol 11:129–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Larsen AT, LeWitt PA, Came DB (1983) Theoretical and practical issues in assessment of deficits and therapy in parkinsonism. In: Calne DB, Horowski R, McDonald RJ, Wittke W (eds) Lisuride and other dopamine agonists. Raven, New York, pp 363–373Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ward CD, Sanes JN, Dambriosia JM, Calne DB (1983) Methods for evaluating treatment in Parkinson’s disease. In: Fahn S, Calne DB, Shoulson I (eds) Experimental therapeutics of movement disorders. Raven, New York, pp 1–7 (Advances in neurology, vol 37)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD (1967) Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology 17:427–442PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fahn S (1975) “On off” phenomenon with levodopa therapy in parkinsonism. Neurology (Minneapolis) 24:431–444Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    LeWitt PA, Chase TN (1983) “On off” effects: the new challenge in parkinsonism. TINS 6:1–4Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nausieda PA, Glantz R, Weber S, Baum R, Klawans HL (1984) Psychiatric complications of levodopa therapy of Parkinson’s disease. In: Hassler RG, Christ JF (eds) Advances in neurology, vol 40. Raven, New York, pp 271–277Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Korczyn AD, Inzelberg R, Treves M, Reider I, Rabey JM (1986) Dementia of Parkinson’s disease. In: Yahr MD, Bergmann KJ (eds) Parkinson’s disease. Raven, New York, pp 399–403 (Advances in neurology, vol 45)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rabey JM, Scharf M, Oberman Z, Zohar M, Graff E (1990) Cortisol, ACTH and beta endorphin after dexamethasone administration in Parkinson’s dementia. Biol Psychiatry 27:581–591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mayeux R, Stern Y, Cote L, Williams JBW (1983) Clinical and biochemical features of depression in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 14:135–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fahn S, Elton RL and members of the UPDRS development committee (1987) Unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Goldstein M, Calne DB (eds) Recent developments in Parkinson’s disease, vol 2. Macmillan, New York, pp 153–163Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Karnofsky DA, Burchenal JH, Armistead GC, Southam CM, Bernstein JL, Craver IF, Rhoads CP (1951) Triethylene nealamine in the treatment of neoplastic disease. Arch Intern Med 87:477–516Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    England AC, Schwab RS (1956) Postoperative evaluation of 26 selected patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 4:1219–1232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canter CJ, De la Torre R, Mier M (1961) A method of evaluating disability in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Nerv Ment Dis 133:143–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webster DD (1968) Critical analysis of the disability in Parkinson’s disease. Mod Treatment 5:257–282Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alba A, Trainor FS, Ritter W, Dacso MM (1968) A clinical disability rating for parkinsonian patients. J Chronic Dis 21:507–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klawans HL, Garvin JS (1969) Treatment of parkinsonism with levodopa. Dis Nerv Syst 30:737–746PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duvoisin RC (1970) The evaluation of extrapyramidal disease. In: De Ajuriagerra J (ed) Monoamines, noyaux gris centraux et syndrome de Parkinson. Masson, Paris, pp 313–325Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parkes JD, Zilkha KJ, Calver DM, Knill-Jones RP (1970) Controlled trial of amantadine hydrochloride in Parkinson’s disease. Lancet I:259–262Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cotzias GC, Papavasilou PS, Fehling C, Kaufman B, Mena I (1970) Similarities between neurologic effects of L-dopa and apomorphine. N Engl J Med 282:31–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rinne UK, Sonninen V, Sirtola J (1970) L-dopa treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Eur Neurol 4:348–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McDowell F, Lee JE, Swift T, Sweet RD, Ogsbury JS, Tesslet JT (1970) Treatment of Parkinson’s syndrome with dihydroxyphenylalanine (L-dopa). Ann Intern Med 72:29–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anden NE, Carlsson A, Kerstell J, Magnusson T, Olsson R, Roose BE, Steen B, Steg G, Svangorg A, Thieme G, Werdinius B (1970) Oral L-dopa treatment of parkinsonism. Acta Med Scand 187:247–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Treciokas LJ, Ansel RD, Markham CH (1971) One to two years’ treatment of Parkinson’s disease with levodopa. Calif Med 114:7–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Birkmayer W, Neumayer E (1972) Die moderne medikamentöse Behandlung des Parkinsonismus. Z Neurol 202:257–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Potvin AR, Tourtellotte WW (1975) The neurological examination: advancement in its quantification. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 56:425–437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lhermitte F, Agid Y, Signoret JL (1978) Onset and end-of-dose levodopa induced dyskinesia. Possible treatment by increasing the daily dose of levodopa. Arch Neurol 35:261–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Diamond DG, Markham CH, Treciokas LJ (1978) A double-blind comparison of levodopa, Madopar and Sinemet in Parkinson’s disease. Ann Neurol 3:267–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lieberman A, Dziatolowski M, Gopinathan G, Kupersmith M, Neophytides A, Korein J (1980) Evaluation of Parkinson’s disease. In: Goldstein M (ed) Ergot compounds and brain function: neuro-endocrine and neuropsychiatric aspects. Raven, New York, pp 277–286Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Rabey
  • A. D. Korczyn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations