| Title |
Prevalence and definition of drooling in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, March 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-009-5098-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. G. Kalf, B. J. M. de Swart, G. F. Borm, B. R. Bloem, M. Munneke |
| Abstract |
Drooling (saliva loss) is a frequently reported symptom in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), but an accurate estimate of the prevalence of drooling is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically review the prevalence of drooling in published research papers. A systematic PubMed and CINAHL search was done, including studies published until January 2009. Eight studies were found, presenting prevalence rates of drooling based on responses of PD patients to questionnaires. The statistical heterogeneity was highly significant (P < 0.0001), with prevalence rates ranging from 32 to 74%. The pooled prevalence estimate with random effect analysis was of 56% (95% CI 44-67) for PD patients and 14% (95% CI 3-25) for healthy controls; the pooled relative risk (RR) with random effect analysis was 5.5 (95% CI 2.1-14.4). All studies reported data of community dwelling idiopathic PD patients, with a mean age around 65 years and mild PD in 50-60% of the cases. Heterogeneity was mainly caused by differences in definition or frequency of drooling. The highest prevalence rates included nocturnal drooling where others noted only diurnal drooling. Analysis of the data of two studies showed that drooling is reported frequently by 22-26% of the patients. Prevalence rates were lower in milder PD patients. The summarized findings demonstrate that drooling can be present in half of all PD patients. In about a quarter of PD patients, drooling appears to be a frequently occurring problem. We recommend to report drooling in future studies with more detailed consideration of severity, frequency and nocturnal versus diurnal complaints. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Turkey | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 26% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 24 February 2022.
All research outputs
#610,550
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#61
of 4,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,340
of 95,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#1
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 95,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.