↓ Skip to main content

A practical approach to remote longitudinal follow‐up of Parkinson's disease: The FOUND study

Overview of attention for article published in Movement Disorders, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A practical approach to remote longitudinal follow‐up of Parkinson's disease: The FOUND study
Published in
Movement Disorders, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/mds.25814
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline M. Tanner, Cheryl C. Meng, Bernard Ravina, Anthony Lang, Roger Kurlan, Kenneth Marek, David Oakes, John Seibyl, Emily Flagg, Lisa Gauger, Dolores D. Guest, Christopher G. Goetz, Karl Kieburtz, Diane DiEuliis, Stanley Fahn, Robin A. Elliott, Ira Shoulson

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine a remote method for maintaining long-term contact with Parkinson's disease (PD) patients participating in clinical studies. Long-term follow-up of PD patients is needed to fill critical information gaps on progression, biomarkers, and treatment. Prospective in-person assessment can be costly and may be impossible for some patients. Remote assessment using mail and telephone contact may be a practical follow-up method. Patients enrolled in the multi-center Longitudinal and Biomarker Study in Parkinson's Disease (LABS-PD) in-person follow-up study in 2006 were invited to enroll in Follow-up of Persons With Neurologic Diseases (FOUND), which is overseen by a single center under a separate, central institutional review board protocol. FOUND uses mailed questionnaires and telephone interviews to assess PD status. FOUND follow-up continued when LABS-PD in-person visits ended in 2011. Retention and agreement between remote and in-person assessments were determined. In total, 422 of 499 (84.5%) of eligible patients volunteered, AND 96% of participants were retained. Of 60 patients who withdrew consent from LABS-PD, 51 were retained in FOUND. Of 341 patients who were active in LABS-PD, 340 were retained in FOUND (99.7%) when the in-person visits ceased. Exact agreement between remote and in-person assessments was ≥ 80% for diagnosis, disease features (eg, dyskinesias), and PD medication. Correlation between expert-rated and self-reported Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, which were examined at times separated by several months, was moderate or substantial for most items. Retention was excellent using remote follow-up of research participants with PD, providing a safety net when combined with in-person visits, and also is effective as a stand-alone assessment method, providing a useful alternative when in-person evaluation is not feasible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Psychology 5 11%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2014.
All research outputs
#15,207,425
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from Movement Disorders
#3,665
of 4,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,708
of 323,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Movement Disorders
#31
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.