IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0234845.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Parkinson’s disease case ascertainment in prospective cohort studies through combining multiple health information resources

Author

Listed:
  • Marije Reedijk
  • Anke Huss
  • Robert A Verheij
  • Petra H Peeters
  • Roel C H Vermeulen

Abstract

Epidemiological evidence from prospective cohort studies on risk factors of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is limited as case ascertainment is challenging due to a lack of registries and the disease course of PD. The objective of this study was to create a case ascertainment method for PD within two prospective Dutch cohorts based on multiple sources of PD information. This method was validated using clinical records from the general practitioners (GPs). Face validity of the case ascertainment was tested for three etiological factors (smoking, sex and family history of PD). In total 54825 participants were included from the cohorts AMIGO and EPIC-NL. Sources of PD information included self-reported PD, self-reported PD medication, a 9 item screening questionnaire (Tanner), electronical medical records, hospital discharge data and mortality records. Based on these sources we developed a likelihood score with 4 categories (no PD, unlikely PD, possible PD, likely PD). For the different sources of PD information and for the likelihood score we present the agreement with GP-validated cases. Risk of PD for established factors was studied by logistic regression as exact diagnose dates were not always available. Based on the algorithm, we assigned 346 participants to the likely PD category. GP validation confirmed 67% of these participants in EPIC-NL, but only 12% in AMIGO. PD was confirmed in only 3% of the participants with a possible PD classification. PD case ascertainment by mortality records (91%), EMR ICPC (82%) and self-reported information (62–69%) had the highest confirmation rates. The Tanner PD screening questionnaire had a lower agreement (18%). Risk estimates for smoking, family history and sex using all likely PD cases were comparable to the literature for EPIC-NL, but not for smoking in AMIGO. Using multiple sources of PD evidence in cohorts remains important but challenging as performance of sources varied in validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Marije Reedijk & Anke Huss & Robert A Verheij & Petra H Peeters & Roel C H Vermeulen, 2020. "Parkinson’s disease case ascertainment in prospective cohort studies through combining multiple health information resources," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234845
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234845
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0234845&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0234845?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0234845. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.