Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: We previously developed a short clinical battery, consisting of contrast sensitivity, Clinical Dementia Rating, the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-motor section (UPDRS III), and disease duration, which correctly classified 90% of drivers with Parkinson's Disease (PD). The aim of this study was to validate that screening battery in a different sample of PD drivers. METHODS: Sixty drivers with PD were enrolled to validate our original screening battery to predict driving fitness decisions (pass-fail) by a state agency where drivers underwent detailed visual, cognitive, and on-road testing. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants (40%) failed the driving evaluation. The screening battery correctly classified 46 (77%) participants (sensitivity and negative predictive value = 96%; specificity and positive predictive value = 64%). Adding other clinical predictors (e.g., age of onset, Hoehn-Yahr stage instead of UPDRS III) failed to improve the specificity of the model when the sensitivity was kept constant at 96%. However, a driving simulator evaluation improved the specificity of the model to 94%. CONCLUSIONS: The original clinical battery proved to be a valid screening tool that accurately identifies fit drivers with PD and select those who need more detailed testing at specialized centers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Devos et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: