To provide the best possible evidence base for guiding driving decisions in Parkinson disease (PD), we performed a meta-analysis comparing patients with PD to healthy controls (HCs) on naturalistic, on-the-road, and simulator driving outcomes.
Seven major databases were systematically searched (to January 2018) for studies comparing patients with PD to HCs on overall driving performance, with data analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis.
Fifty studies comprising 5,410 participants (PD = 1,955, HC = 3,455) met eligibility criteria. Analysis found the odds of on-the-road test failure were 6.16 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.79-10.03) times higher and the odds of simulator crashes 2.63 (95% CI 1.64-4.22) times higher for people with PD, with poorer overall driving ratings also observed (standardized mean differences from 0.50 to 0.67). However, self-reported real-life crash involvement did not differ between people with PD and HCs (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% CI 0.57-1.23, p = 0.38). Findings remained unchanged after accounting for any differences in age, sex, and driving exposure, and no moderating influence of disease severity was found.
Our findings provide persuasive evidence for substantive driving impairment in PD, but offer little support for mandated PD-specific relicensure based on self-reported crash data alone, and highlight the need for objective measures of crash involvement.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 18 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,181,841
of 26,855,855 outputs
Outputs from Neurology
#5,618
of 21,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,943
of 344,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology
#75
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,855,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 344,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
