AbstractA comprehensive, patient-centered conceptual model of early Parkinson’s is lacking and is greatly needed. A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative and quantitative research was conducted by a multi-stakeholder taskforce using JBI Mixed Methods Review criteria and GRADE-CERQual standards for assessment of evidence. Over 340 symptoms and impacts were identified across ten symptom domains (Movement, Cognitive, Psychiatric, Sleep, Sensory, Speech, Digestive, Urinary, Sexual, Autonomic) and two impact domains (Physical and Psychosocial functioning). A wide range of motor and non-motor symptoms were present in early disease, with strongest support for tremor, dexterity, gait, stiffness, slow movements, cognitive, mood, and sleep alterations, urinary dysfunction, constipation, pain, and fatigue. These affected mobility, self-concept, coping, effort of living, interactions and important activities, with evidence of many understudied concepts. This model offers the most comprehensive catalogue of symptoms and impacts in Parkinson’s to date and will support clinical practice and endpoint selection for therapeutic trials.
IntroductionEffective treatments to halt or delay progression of Parkinson’s disease (PD) are urgently needed by patients and families1. However, development of new drugs is a time and resource intensive process accompanied by more failures than successes2. This is especially true for diseases with wide heterogeneity in symptom expression and unclear biological mechanisms of progression, such as PD3. Phenotypic variability makes selection of pertinent outcomes for trials particularly challenging, as different symptoms or functional impacts may be more (or less) important to different people at different points throughout their disease course4,5. Yet, the success of clinical trials is dependent on having clinical outcome assessments (COA) that are sensitive to treatment effects rather than natural variations in disease progression or situational context6,7. This has created a critical need-to-know, with reasonable certainty, what experiences are typically most important to the majority of people with PD at specified stages of disease (i.e., what—who—when). This summative, contextually-defined knowledge of individuals’ lived experiences is essential to development of outcome measures that are meaningful from a real-world perspective and in alignment with the regulatory landscape8,9. Recent qualitative work has greatly enhanced understanding of the lived experiences of people with Parkinson’s4,10,11,12,13; however there is no comprehensive nor widely accepted patient-centric conceptual model that can be used to guide the field. For this reason, following the 2022 PD Endpoints Roundtable14, a global taskforce of experts and patient representatives was convened to develop a consensus-based conceptual model of meaningful symptoms and functional impacts for early PD from systematic review of the literature. The taskforce goals were to create a comprehensive yet parsimonious model that (1) aligns with current Food Drug Administration (FDA) guidance for patient-focused drug development (PFDD)6,7,8,9, (2) can support future research, practice, and clinical trials, (3) and is adaptable to emerging knowledge and later-stages of disease. This paper reports methodological approaches and findings of the taskforce.ResultsSample characteristicsA total of 88 studies in early PD were utilized for the concept identification phase4,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97. Of these, 56 sources were in PD < 3 years since diagnosis4,10,11,12,13,15,16,18,19,21,22,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,38,39,43,45,46,48,49,50,52,54,55,57,59,60,62,66,67,68,69,70,73,76,77,78,79,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,92,95,96,97. After pooling for same sample studies within this latter subset, a total of 38 unique samples were identified and used to derive frequencies for the final model. All qualitative studies (Tier 1; 6 unique samples from 7 studies) were from the UK, USA, and Canada with predominantly white participants (93–100%)4,10,11,12,13,15,16. Three reported bothersomeness; four reported prevalence; one reported both. Sample sizes in qualitative studies ranged from 20 to 134 with one very large sample study of 8536 participants (Fox Insight/PD PROP)15. Tier 2 (N = 13) and Tier 3 (N = 19) quantitative sources included studies from UK, USA, Canada, Italy, Korea, Serbia, Thailand, Germany, India, China, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Distribution of race/ethnicity was generally not reported. Samples sizes for quantitative studies ranged from 54 to 921 participants. The mean age range for all studies in all Tiers was 57–68 years. Gender distribution ranged from 40–74% male, most commonly around 60%. In 13 of 38 unique samples (34%), participants were taking PD medications (range 4–100%; mean LEDD 50–544 mg/day). However, medication use was not specified in 18% (7/38). Hoehn & Yahr score (H&Y) was reported by 27/38 samples, with mean H&Y < 2 for all, but only 12/27 (44%) with H&Y ≤2 when factoring +2 SD. MDS-UPDRS III (motor) was reported in 25/38 studies and ranged from 9.2–27.0, which is consistent with early PD98. Detailed characteristics for each study included in the review are presented in the Supplementary Data.Concept characteristicsApproximately 340 symptoms and impacts were identified from 88 publications, as shown in Tables 1–12. Substantial variability was observed in terminology and classification of concepts, with certain concepts inconsistently classified as motor vs. non-motor, (e.g., restless leg, constipation, drooling, voice changes, swallowing), impact vs. symptom (e.g., anxiety, depression, frustration), or listed twice under both symptom and impact (e.g., handwriting, anxiety). Diverse terminology was commonly used to describe conceptually similar ideas (e.g., depressed mood, feelings of sadness, negative feelings and emotions). Definitions were rarely provided for terms, requiring reviewers to infer what a concept likely comprised from common language use or from the context in the report (e.g., thermoregulation indicative of heat/cold intolerance vs. body temperature).Table 1 SOFT Report - Movement DomainFull size tableTable 2 SOFT Report - Cognitive DomainFull size tableTable 3 SOFT Report - Psychiatric DomainFull size tableTable 4 SOFT Report - Sensory DomainFull size tableTable 5 SOFT Report - Speech DomainFull size tableTable 6 SOFT Report - Sleep DomainFull size tableTable 7 SOFT Report - Digestive DomainFull size tableTable 8 SOFT Report - Urinary DomainFull size tableTable 9 SOFT Report - Sexual DomainFull size tableTable 10 SOFT Report - Autonomic DomainFull size tableTable 11 SOFT Report - Physical Functioning DomainFull size tableTable 12 SOFT Report - Psychosocial Functioning DomainFull size tableConsensus conceptual model schemaConcepts were organized using a primary classification schema of Domain—Category—Concept—Experience, with secondary classification of motor or non-motor occurring at the measurement level, as depicted in Fig. 1. Ten systems-based symptom domains were identified (Movement, Cognitive, Psychiatric, Sleep, Sensory, Speech, Digestive, Urinary, Sexual, Autonomic) in addition to two impact domains (Physical functioning; Psychosocial functioning). A sample map of the top-level conceptual schema is presented in Fig. 2 for the cognitive domain, with individual concept maps for each domain presented in Supplementary Figs. 1–14. Comprehensive data tables including the frequencies by source are presented in the Supplementary Data. Working definitions for each symptom and impact concept in the model are presented in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2.Fig. 1Conceptual model schema.Full size imageFig. 2Map of conceptual model domains.Full size imageSOFT reportsSynthesis of Findings Tables (Tables 1–12) are presented for each symptom by domain. SOFT reports show (1) issues of coherence in measurement and classification of concepts; (2) adequacy of data supporting conclusions; and (3) the relevance of each concept based on prevalence and the extent to which the concept was bothersome in early PD < 3 years since diagnosis. From the SOFT reports, the most meaningful motor symptoms of early PD appeared to include tremor, fine motor difficulties, gait & balance changes, stiffness, and slow movements—all of which were observed to be prevalent (54–85%) and bothersome (24–57%) within 3 years from diagnosis. The SOFT reports also highlighted multiple non-motor symptoms that were common and important to people with early disease. These included cognitive and speech changes (e.g., word finding); mood changes such as anxiety, depressed mood, or negative feelings/emotions; alterations in sleep; sensory changes (e.g., increased pain and fatigue); urinary dysfunction; and digestive system changes (e.g., choking, constipation).In addition to identifying common symptoms and impacts, multiple gap areas were observed, most often in the impact domains. Early evidence suggests that impact on mobility-related activities, such as physical exercise, may be a high priority area in early PD (70% prevalence; 31% bothersome). Other concepts, such as “Effort of Living” were comparatively new, with no data on prevalence (Tier 1B, 2, 3) but good Tier 1 A evidence (29% bothersome). Other concepts that may be relevant at this stage include impacts on self-concept (35% bothersome), personal coping (29% bothersome), interpersonal interactions (e.g., relationships with others), sense of independence, profession, and hobbies—among others.DiscussionThe consensus conceptual model presented here is the most comprehensive catalogue of meaningful symptoms and impacts in PD, based on literature to date. It is also the first study to provide evidence-based SOFT report cards with a range of metrics about key concepts by domain, which will be helpful for patients, clinicians, and researchers. This effort expands on prior models derived from individual studies4,10,12,13. Corresponding with a recent systematic review by Tosin et al.99, we found strongest support for movement, cognitive, mood, speech, and sleep-related symptoms. Top motor symptoms were tremor and fine motor difficulties, followed by gait, stiffness, and slowed movements. Of non-motor symptoms, sleep changes, fatigue, anxiety, slowed thinking, voice/speech changes, and trouble word finding were common. Cumulatively, our findings suggest future treatments and clinical trials might need to address concepts from more than one domain to adequately reflect early PD experiences. Yet, while providing evidence in support of established concepts, this report highlights multiple concepts that appear meaningful but insufficiently studied, as was evident from the SOFT reports. Thus, further research will be needed before definitive conclusions can be made as to which concepts are most universally relevant at this stage. Ultimately, reevaluation of existing outcome measures will be needed to determine the extent to which these measures reflect what matters in early PD.We believe the SOFT reports presented here can support the evidence-based selection of concepts for research or clinical assessment. However, these reports should be used thoughtfully due to limitations inherent in sampling, data collection, and reporting processes of primary sources. For example, methodological issues in the primary sources could have resulted in over, under, or inconsistent reporting, which in turn would have affected aggregated frequencies. Characterization of samples using H&Y and MDS-UPDRS might lack sensitivity in early disease, particularly with respect to non-motor symptoms100,101,102. Other factors, such as narrow age ranges (57–68 years), low frequency of medication use, underlying disease severity, or even participation in clinical trials may differ from standard clinical populations. Thus, the term “SOFT report” is intentional and serves as a reminder that data are not conclusive and should be treated as an estimation rather than an exact measurement. Future work will help achieve more precise understanding of concepts and a parsimonious set of core outcomes for early-PD.At present, many gap areas exist, where concepts had insufficient data to justify inclusion or exclusion in the final model. It is important to note that absence of supporting data does not indicate a concept is not meaningful. For instance, “gait changes” appears highly relevant in early PD, with little data to indicate which aspects of walking are problematic. In contrast, disconfirming evidence alongside confirming evidence raises questions about concept cohesiveness and adequacy of prior measurement, as was found with reports of dyskinesia in early PD. Thus, particular attention should be paid to concepts with limited or discrepant evidence, to define scope and determine relevance. Identifying specific experiences related to concepts will lead to greater consistency in concept definitions and downstream measurement approaches.For the reasons discussed above, no single metric in the SOFT reports should be used in isolation to justify selection of COI. Consideration should be given to all metrics, including estimates of prevalence, evidence of relevance in early PD, and total weight of evidence justifying conclusions. Linking symptom concepts to specific functional impairments might also be helpful, allowing for triangulated assessments (e.g., what the person can or cannot do because of fatigue). Other considerations, such as measurability, expectations for change within the time frame of the trial (e.g., 6–18 months), anticipated susceptibility to treatment, and context of use are also important. For example, “stigma” may be relevant to PwP, but unlikely to change rapidly with treatment. Other important points to consider are universality and participant characteristics such as age, life-stage, sex, gender, geographic location, and culture, which can alter the meaningfulness of concepts. For example, the impact of PD on driving may be different for people in rural areas than for urban residents, which could affect the suitability of the concept for geographically diverse trials. Similarly, COIs may be sex specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction) and not equally applicable to both sexes. It is also important to consider normative values, social biases, and recall. Some experiences may be difficult to remember accurately over time, while others may be subject to social desirability bias (e.g., reluctance to report compulsive behaviors). Ability to tell if a symptom is attributable to PD is also important, as was highlighted by the patient panel.Key strengths of this study include exhaustive review and meta-synthesis of diverse studies, inclusion of stakeholders throughout the model-building process, and use of an iterative, consensus-based design. We believe this has contributed to a maximally inclusive model reflective of current science, with an intuitive and easily understood interface, which will contribute to clinical care and early PD trials. However, several areas remain in need of substantial future work. Foremost, there remains a marked lack of diversity in PD research103. We were unable to evaluate similarities or differences in symptoms and impacts between age groups, sexes, or cultures. All Tier 1 evidence was elicited from the UK, USA, and Canada, with samples that were >93% white, with only marginally greater diversity in Tier 2 and 3. Future work should aim to expand knowledge of meaningful symptoms and functional impacts in culturally, geographically, racially, sex, and gender diverse populations6,7,8,9. Research to understand the impact of early PD on patients and families might also be warranted, as only one study in the review reported the perspectives of family members separately from patient perspectives16.A second call to action is for harmonization of concepts and concept definitions, which is needed for synergy in future work. However, the schema proposed here is not intended to be prescriptive, but to support use, consistency, and forward momentum. As such, all terms in the present model have been given working definitions (Supplementary Tables 1–2) derived from evidence-based resources or common language usage104,105,106. It is expected this will evolve over time and that both model schema and definitions may require revision or refinement as the field matures. Revisions should be made cautiously and grounded in rigorous evidence, with careful attention to existing items to minimize redundancy. Where possible, researchers will benefit by building on prior work. When needed, clear and compelling justification should be provided for alternate terms. In selecting “best” terms and groupings, reflecting the experiences of the people living with PD should remain the top priority. For example, autonomic symptoms often overlapped with other categories (e.g., Gastrointestinal). Where this occurred, domain assignment was determined by consensus (patient + expert) with preference to patient-friendly groupings. Thus, where possible, lay-friendly terms will be preferred over complex technical terms (e.g., slow movements vs. bradykinesia).Finally, in addition to refinement of concepts, intermittent re-evaluation will be needed to ensure alignment with emerging biological staging systems for neuronal synuclein disease (NSD)107. In the present model, studies relied on time since clinical PD diagnosis, and findings might not be fully translatable to biologically-staged NSD. Best approximation is likely to NSD Stage 3 or 4 (mild symptoms and slight to mild functional impairment)107. As such, the proposed model should be understood as “best fit now” to prevent loss of momentum while striving for increasing harmonization. Future work will enable better understanding of what is important at each stage and selection of stage-appropriate COI and COA for clinical trials.In conclusion, a widely accepted consensus conceptual model is an essential step in development of meaningful and reliable fit-for-purpose COAs for clinical trials in early PD. Future work should aim to reevaluate the adequacy of existing measures to capture what matters to PwP and their families based on this new evidence. Collaborative efforts, leveraging prior work, and consensus on key concepts will be crucial to advancing the science, reducing effort duplication, and ultimately developing the disease-modifying treatments that are so desperately needed. We believe the methods and findings described here will help address gaps in outcome measure development and serve as an exemplar for future conceptual model development beyond PD.MethodsBest-practice guidelines were followed for each stage of model building, including systematic review of the literature, mixed-methods evidence synthesis, and assessment of evidence quality108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115. These are shown in Fig. 3 and described below.Fig. 3Approach to development of the consensus model.Full size imageApproach to systematic review & model developmentGuidelines proposed by Brady et al.109 were used for the development of conceptual models, which entailed: (1) identifying resources (e.g., existing models, stakeholders, and literature-based sources), (2) considering the broad array of possible factors identified from resources, (3) narrowing down factors for inclusion on the basis of theory, stakeholder perspectives, and evidence109. A 14-person, multi-stakeholder taskforce convened March of 2023, together with a 9-person patient and family advisory panel (Table 13), to develop the methods and approach to the systematic review of the literature (Step 1). Stakeholders included people affected by PD (patients and families), researchers, clinicians, PD advocacy groups, industry, and regulatory agencies (FDA). The purpose of the literature review was to identify all reported symptoms and functional impacts of early PD (Step 2), with ultimate intent to identify which concepts are most meaningful for early-stage disease, to inform the final model (Step 3).Table 13 Stakeholder participation in development of the consensus conceptual modelFull size tableThe taskforce elected a convergent integrated synthesis approach to identify meaningful symptoms and impacts in both qualitative and quantitative studies108,116,117. For the review, JBI Mixed Methods Review criteria108,117 were used to: (1) define the review question; (2) determine inclusion/exclusion criteria; (3) define the search strategy (4) systematically assess methodological quality (5) perform data extraction (6) synthesize data; and (7) present results.Research question: What symptoms and impacts are most meaningful in early PD?Definitions of key termsThere is no formal definition of early PD and most studies to date have utilized clinical diagnosis, with variable definitions of early-stage disease ranging from 0 to upwards of 6 years. For the model, early PD was defined as less than 3 years since diagnosis (YSD) by expert consensus. The 3-year timeframe aligns with the target population of the Critical Path for Parkinson’s Consortium and with many clinical trials for early PD118. People affected by PD were defined as patients/people with PD (PwP) and their intimate social circle, referred to hereafter as “family.” The terms “caregiver” and “care partner” were not used as most people with early PD do not have formal caregivers, and “partner” does not encompass the scope of people affected by PD, such as children and close friends.A concept of interest was defined as the “aspect of an individual’s clinical, biological, physical, or functional state, or experience that the assessment is intended to capture or reflect”8. For this model, “symptoms” were considered to be the subjective or objective physical and mental features (i.e., signs/symptoms of disease) occurring as a direct result of PD, leading or potentially leading to changes in day-to-day physical and psychosocial functioning. “Functional impacts” (hereafter “impacts”) were defined in alignment with FDA guidance as experiences occurring as a consequence of disease, such as changes in the way a person functions or feels6. Per patient panel and expert discussion, to be deemed “meaningful” a concept (either symptom or impact) had to show evidence of being prevalent as well as personally bothersome to people with early PD.Primary source inclusion/exclusion criteriaSources were eligible for inclusion if they were: (a) primary published or unpublished qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods (MM) studies; (b) conducted within an early PD population as defined by source study authors; (c) reported any symptoms and/or impacts of early PD; and (d) contained data that were patient, family, observer, clinician reported or digitally measured. For longitudinal studies baseline measurement values were used. Studies focused on evaluating the effect of a specific medication or intervention were excluded, as were conference proceedings.Search strategyFor the literature review, any source with a study-defined “early PD” population was included to avoid missing potential sources during the search process. Four databases were searched as shown in Supplementary Table 3. Search Strategy 1 identified sources published within 10 years that referenced early PD and symptoms or impacts anywhere in the title or abstract (search date: May 2023). Strategy 2 identified sources that used early PD and common terms for qualitative research anywhere in the title or abstract without time limits. Strategy 3 focused on reference lists of relevant review articles to identify additional sources. Strategy 4 used expert consultation to identify key sources > 10 years old or unpublished relevant datasets not captured in the first two search strategies.As shown in Fig. 4, 2006 sources were returned, with 1301 duplicates. Abstracts were screened for 705 sources. Of these 554 were excluded and 151 were selected for full text review. Eighty-eight sources remained after eliminating studies without reportable data on symptoms or impacts within any early PD population. Of these, only 56 studies used samples that were strictly <3 years since diagnosis based on mean and SD. A complete audit trail of sources screened and included/excluded is provided in Supplementary References.Fig. 4Flowchart for identification and screening of sources included in conceptual model.Full size imageApproach to data analysisAll sources that met review inclusion criteria were systematically analyzed, and findings were weighted and aggregated to enable assessment of the total quality of evidence supporting each concept in early PD, as described below. Data extraction for concepts was performed on all studies of early PD as defined by study authors (N = 89; range 0–6 years since diagnosis), however, data regarding frequencies of concepts was limited to PD < 3 years since diagnosis (N = 56). This was done to maximize identification of potential concepts with reported frequencies specific to early PD.Data extractionFor mixed methods synthesis, JBI guidance recommends codifying quantitative data in a manner compatible with qualitative synthesis to reduce potential for inaccuracies in meta-aggregation across methodologies116. Using a matrix spreadsheet (Supplementary Data), all studies were assessed individually for study aims, design, year of publication, sample size, PD stage, diagnostic criteria, years since diagnosis (mean, SD), comparison group, gender distribution, race/ethnicity, country of origin, data source, data collection instruments, PD medication use, levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn & Yahr (H&Y), Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III total score if reported119, any covariates, and a brief study synopsis.Each source was then analyzed to extract information about symptoms or impacts of early PD. Where given, frequencies for prevalence were extracted. For studies lacking frequencies but reporting between groups comparisons for early PD vs. Control (e.g., normative cohort, later PD cohort), statistically significant differences were indicated as present (*) and lack of statistically significant differences indicated as not present (-). For studies reporting bothersomeness rather than prevalence, the percentage of people identifying the concept as being actively bothersome was reported.Development of the conceptual model schemaAfter content coding, all identified concepts were qualitatively analyzed to derive a best-fit conceptual schema that was intuitive, parsimonious, supported measurement consistency and reduced redundancy. Only concepts identified by systematic review were included in the modeling. Initial attempts to group by motor versus non-motor resulted in a poorly organized structure due to the large number of concepts identified and the presence of many concepts with ambiguous classification (e.g., motor vs. non-motor; symptom vs. impact). A series of 10 interactive sessions were held from September to November 2023, to solicit feedback from all stakeholders (taskforce and patient panel) and derive a consensus-based schema that was intuitive and user-friendly for clinicians, researchers, PwP and families. Sessions were held online in focus group format, with a moderator who summarized and synthesized perspectives in real time.Using mapping approaches (Xmind) with screen sharing, concepts were clustered by relatedness and organized into logical groupings120,121. Where possible, full agreement was sought for all analytic decisions, with use of >80% majority vote on best groupings when 100% consensus was not achieved in online meetings. Similar concepts were merged and consensus term selected based on taskforce and patient panel agreement. Concepts that related to a broader concept were subsumed as dependent nodes to develop a branching structure moving from broad concepts to progressively more specific aspects of an experience (e.g., shuffling is an aspect of gait). All conceptually distinct items were retained in the final model schema (Supplementary Figs. 1 through 14). Conceptual distinctness and relatedness were determined by stakeholder consensus. Detailed documentation of stakeholder sessions and revisions to the schema was retained for an audit trail.Weighting of primary sources preparatory to metasynthesisThe PFDD guidance series prioritizes direct report of patient experience from the target population9. When this type of data is limited or the patient population has reduced ability to reliably report experiences, supporting information may be obtained from caregivers, clinicians, or other key informants8. Based on discussion with the patient panel and taskforce members, a three-tiered approach was chosen for classification of primary sources. This was done to allow for prioritization of patient voice and weighted synthesis of findings across diverse methodologies and data sources as described below.Tier 14,10,11,12,13,15,16,17 comprised qualitative or mixed methods studies that evaluated symptoms and impacts of PD using an open-ended, iterative, and patient-driven approach, in which patients and/or family were asked to freely identify what symptoms or impacts the person experienced without any constraints. Tier 1 was further subdivided to Tier 1 A (studies reporting a symptom as being bothersome in early PD irrespective of prevalence) and Tier 1B (studies reporting symptoms as present in early PD irrespective of whether it is bothersome). Tier 1 sources were used as primary evidence for the conceptual model. Original study teams from Tier 1 sources were contacted to obtain detailed frequencies for symptoms and impacts if not fully presented in published manuscripts4,10,11,12,16,122.Tier 2 and 3 consisted of quantitative studies in which predetermined aspects of health were measured using quantitative approaches. Tier 2 included studies that evaluated symptoms and impacts using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, in which a limited selection of symptoms or impacts were evaluated from the patient perspective22,23,27,33,34,36,50,52,58,60,62,66,68,72,74,77,79,81,82,84,85,87,88,90,91,92,94. Tier 3 included data from studies with clinician or observer reported symptoms or impacts (i.e., ClinRO, ObsRO)18,19,20,21,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,32,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,51,53,54,55,56,57,59,61,63,64,65,67,69,70,71,73,75,76,78,80,83,86,89,93,95,96,97. Sources reporting only cumulative scores on validated scales were excluded as they lacked discrete data on symptoms or impacts. Tier2 and 3 studies were included as supporting evidence due to potential for bias in symptom reporting.Pooling of same sample studiesSame sample studies were defined as separate publications that reported findings from the same (identical) participant sample (Supplementary Data). Findings were pooled from same-sample studies to ensure equal weighting of concepts during meta-synthesis. For pooling, redundant findings (e.g., demographics—diagnosis of depression) were reported once, while all unique findings were retained. Thus, a total of 38 unique study samples were included in the final model.Aggregation of data for early PD < 3 years since diagnosisData aggregation was performed at the level of unique samples (N = 38), rather than at the level of individual studies so that each unique sample was represented only once in the final meta-synthesis. Only samples with data for PD < 3 years since diagnosis were included at this stage, based on the final model inclusion criteria. Data and frequencies for the full early PD sample (N = 89, 0–6 years since diagnosis) vs. PD < 3 years since diagnosis can be viewed in Supplementary Data.The following metrics were calculated for each symptom and impact in early PD < 3 years since diagnosis:
1.
Number and percentage of unique samples that measured a concept (within and across Tiers);
2.
Average prevalence of concept (within and across Tiers 1B, 2, & 3—calculated as the sum of frequencies in all studies reporting prevalence/total number of studies reporting prevalence);
3.
Number and percentage of unique samples disconfirming presence of concept (within and across all Tiers); and
4.
Frequency which concept was reported as being actively bothersome (Tier 1 A; calculated as the sum of frequencies in studies reporting bothersomeness/total number of studies reporting bothersomeness).
Assessment of quality of evidence and synthesis of findingsNext, evidence synthesis and assessment of quality was performed using GRADE-CERQual110,111,112,113,114,115. GRADE-CERQual is a standardized approach to assessment of confidence in the quality of evidence from qualitative studies and is endorsed by the World Health Organization and numerous government agencies for the development guidelines to shape public policy and research123,124,125. CERQual evaluates four primary areas: (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence of findings, (3) adequacy of the data, and (4) relevance of the findings. Operationalized criteria for this are presented in Table 13. Methodological limitations were addressed via the Tiered approach, in which findings were weighted by methodology.Research community reviewLastly, to maximize potential for usefulness and adoption of the consensus model, the model and manuscript and all supporting files were posted online for research community review and feedback over a 1-month period (Jan-Feb 2024). Participants for the community review were solicited via the MJFF research community newsletter (distribution list N = ~9.5 K), the UK PD clinical Studies Group (N = 65) and by personal invitation to experts identified by the taskforce members, including members of FDA, EMA, MDS, CPP and content experts (N = 88). An online form was provided for feedback or feedback could alternately be emailed directly to taskforce members. Final minor clarifications were made to the model, figures, and manuscript on the basis of reviews, with an audit trail of changes available upon request Table 14.Table 14 Operationalized criteria for assessment of quality of evidence – GRADE-CERQualFull size table
Data availability
Data for the consensus model literature review are included in Supplementary materials.
Code availability
Not applicable.
ReferencesEspay, A. J. et al. A roadmap for implementation of patient-centered digital outcome measures in Parkinson’s disease obtained using mobile health technologies. Mov Disord 34, 657–663 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Sertkaya, A., Birkenbach, A., Berlind, A. & Eyraud, J. Examination of Clinical Trial Costs and Barriers for Drug Development. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/examination-clinical-trial-costs-barriers-drug-development-0 (2014).Schalkamp, A. K., Rahman, N., Monzon-Sandoval, J. & Sandor, C. Deep phenotyping for precision medicine in Parkinson’s disease. Dis Model Mech 15, dmm049376 (2022).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Port, R. J. et al. People with Parkinson’s Disease: What Symptoms Do They Most Want to Improve and How Does This Change with Disease Duration? J Parkinsons Dis 11, 715–724 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Raket, L. L. et al. Impact of age at onset on symptom profiles, treatment characteristics and health-related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Sci Rep 12, 526 (2022).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
USDHHS. Patient-focused drug development: Selecting, Developing, or Modifying Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcome Assessments (Guidance 3). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-focused-drug-development-selecting-developing-or-modifying-fit-purpose-clinical-outcome (2022).USDHHS. Patient-focused drug development: Incorporating Clinical Outcome Assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision-making (Draft Guidance 4). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-focused-drug-development-incorporating-clinical-outcome-assessments-endpoints-regulatory (2022).USDHHS. Patient-focused drug development: Collecting comprehensive and representative input (Guidance 1). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-focused-drug-development-collecting-comprehensive-and-representative-input (2018).USDHHS. Patient-focused drug development: Methods to identify what is important to patients (Guidance 2). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-focused-drug-development-methods-identify-what-important-patients (2022).Mammen, J. R. et al. Relative Meaningfulness and Impacts of Symptoms in People with Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease. J Parkinsons Dis 13, 619–632 (2023).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Mestre, T. A., LaPelle, N. & Stebbins, G. A Patient Reported Outcome Assessment for Patients with Early Parkinson’s Disease. Prepublication data (ND).Morel, T. et al. Patient Experience in Early-Stage Parkinson’s Disease: Using a Mixed Methods Analysis to Identify Which Concepts Are Cardinal for Clinical Trial Outcome Assessment. Neurol Ther 11, 1319–1340 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Staunton, H. et al. A Patient-Centered Conceptual Model of Symptoms and Their Impact in Early Parkinson’s Disease: A Qualitative Study. J Parkinsons Dis 12, 137–151 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
O’Hanlon, C., Farmer, C., Ryan, J. & Ernecoff, N. Clinical Outcome Assessments and Digital Health Technologies Supporting Clinical Trial Endpoints in Early Parkinson’s Disease: Roundtable Proceedings and Roadmap for Research. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CFA2550-1.html (2023).Lerner, A. et al. Fox Insight: Most Bothersome Symptoms in Early-Stage Parkinson's Disease. Mov. Disord. Clin. Pract. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.14321.Mammen, J. R. et al. Understanding what aspects of Parkinson’s disease matter most to patients and families. Sci Rep 14, 21171 (2024).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Politis, M. et al. Parkinson’s Disease Symptoms: The Patient’s Perspective. Mov. Disord. 25, 1646–1651 (2010).PubMed
Google Scholar
Adams, J. L. et al. Using a smartwatch and smartphone to assess early Parkinson’s disease in the WATCH-PD study. npj Parkinsons Dis 9, 64 (2023).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Adwani, S., Yadav, R., Kumar, K., Chandra, S. R. & Pal, P. K. Neuropsychological profile in early Parkinson’s disease: Comparison between patients with right side onset versus left side onset of motor symptoms. Ann. Indian Acad. Neurol. 19, 74–78 (2016).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Amara, A. W. et al. Self-reported physical activity levels and clinical progression in early Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 61, 118–125 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Amara, A. W. et al. Longitudinal assessment of excessive daytime sleepiness in early Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 88, 653–662 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Baig, F. et al. Impulse control disorders in Parkinson disease and RBD A longitudinal study of severity. Neurology 93, E675–E687 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Baig, F. et al. Delineating Nonmotor Symptoms in Early Parkinson’s Disease and First-Degree Relatives. Mov. Disord. 30, 1759–1766 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Baig, F. et al. Personality and addictive behaviours in early Parkinson’s disease and REM sleep behaviour disorder. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 37, 72–78 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Baschieri, F. et al. Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension in early stage Parkinson’s disease: New insights from the first 105 patients of the BoProPark study. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 93, 12–18 (2021).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Bega, D. et al. Impact of Depression on Progression of Impairment and Disability in Early Parkinson’s Disease. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice 2, 371–378 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Bhidayasiri, R. et al. Impact of disease stage and age at Parkinson’s onset on patients’ primary concerns: Insights for targeted management. Plos One 15, 15 (2020).
Google Scholar
Choi, S. M., Cho, S. H., Choe, Y. & Kim, B. C. Clinical determinants of apathy and its impact on health-related quality of life in early Parkinson disease. Medicine 102, 4 (2023).
Google Scholar
Chua, C. Y. et al. Subjective cognitive Complaints in early Parkinson ‘ s disease patients with normal cognition are associated with affective symptoms. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 82, 24–28 (2021).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Diederich, N. J., Rufra, O., Pieri, V., Hipp, G. & Vaillant, M. Lack of Polysomnographic Non-REM Sleep Changes in Early Parkinson’s Disease. Movement Disorders 28, 1443–1446 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Diederich, N. J., Sauvageot, N., Pieri, V., Hipp, G. & Vaillant, M. The Clinical Non-Motor Connectome in Early Parkinson’s Disease. J. Parkinsons Dis. 10, 1797–1806 (2020).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Dijkstra, F., de Volder, I., Viaene, M., Cras, P. & Crosiers, D. Impaired bed mobility in prediagnostic and de novo Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 98, 47–52 (2022).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Dlay, J. K. et al. Progression of Neuropsychiatric Symptoms over Time in an Incident Parkinson’s Disease Cohort (ICICLE-PD). Brain Sci 10, 12 (2020).
Google Scholar
Durcan, R. et al. Prevalence and duration of non-motor symptoms in prodromal Parkinson’s disease. Eur. J. Neurol. 26, 979–985 (2019).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Eriksson, A. et al. Changes in Emotion Processing in Early Parkinson’s Disease Reflect Disease Progression. Neuropsychology 36, 206–215 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Erro, R. et al. Non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: a 2-year follow-up study on previously untreated patients. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 84, 14–17 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Fagerberg, P. et al. Lower Energy Intake among Advanced vs. Early Parkinson’s Disease Patients and Healthy Controls in a Clinical Lunch Setting: A Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients 12, 19 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hemphill, L., Valenzuela, Y., Luna, K., Szymkowicz, S. M. & Jones, J. D. Synergistic associations of depressive symptoms and aging on cognitive decline in early Parkinson’s disease. Clin Park Relat Disord 8, 100192 (2023).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Huang, X. X. et al. Serum uric acid level and its association with motor subtypes and non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: PALS study. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 55, 50–54 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Isais-Millan, S., Pina-Fuentes, D., Guzman-Astorga, C., Cervantes-Arriaga, A. & Rodriguez-Violante, M. Prevalence of neuropsychiatric disorders in drug-naive subjects with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Gac. Med. Mex. 152, 357–363 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Jeancolas, L. et al. Voice characteristics from isolated rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder to early Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 95, 86–91 (2022).PubMed
Google Scholar
Kim, M. et al. Extra-basal ganglia iron content and non-motor symptoms in drug-naive, early Parkinson’s disease. Neurol. Sci. 42, 5297–5304 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Koh, M. R. E. et al. Poor sleep quality is associated with fatigue and depression in early Parkinson’s disease: A longitudinal study in the PALS cohort. Front. Neurol. 13, 9 (2022).
Google Scholar
Kwon, K. Y. et al. Dizziness in patients with early stages of Parkinson’s disease: Prevalence, clinical characteristics and implications. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 20, 443–447 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
LaBelle, D. R., Walsh, R. R. & Banks, S. J. Latent Cognitive Phenotypes in De Novo Parkinson’s Disease: A Person-Centered Approach. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 23, 551–563 (2017).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Larsen, J. P., Dalen, I., Pedersen, K. F. & Tysnes, O. B. The natural history of depressive symptoms in patients with incident Parkinson’s disease: a prospective cohort study. J. Neurol. 264, 2401–2408 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lee, S. M. et al. Differential diagnosis of parkinsonism with visual inspection of posture and gait in the early stage. Gait Posture 39, 1138–1141 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Liu, R. et al. Potential sex differences in nonmotor symptoms in early drug-naive Parkinson disease. Neurology 84, 2107–2115 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lord, S., Galna, B., Coleman, S., Burn, D. & Rochester, L. Mild depressive symptoms are associated with gait impairment in early Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. 28, 634–639 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Malek, N. et al. Autonomic Dysfunction in Early Parkinson’s Disease: Results from the United Kingdom Tracking Parkinson’s Study. Mov. Disord. Clin. Pract. 4, 509–516 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Marković, V. et al. Gait alterations in Parkinson’s disease at the stage of hemiparkinsonism-A longitudinal study. PLoS One 17, e0269886 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Martinez-Ramirez, D. et al. Lower Urinary Tract and Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Are Common in Early Parkinson’s Disease. Parkinsons Dis 2020, e0269888 (2020).
Google Scholar
Meira, B. et al. Early Parkinson’s Disease Phenotypes Tailored by Personality, Behavior, and Motor Symptoms. J Parkinsons Dis 12, 1665–1676 (2022).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Moguel-Cobos, G., Saldivar, C., Goslar, P. W. & Shill, H. A. The Relationship Between Social Anxiety Disorder and Motor Symptoms of Parkinson Disease: A Pilot Study. Psychosomatics 61, 321–326 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Mollenhauer, B. et al. Baseline predictors for progression 4 years after Parkinson’s disease diagnosis in the De Novo Parkinson Cohort (DeNoPa). Mov Disord 34, 67–77 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Moreau, C. et al. Are Upper-Body Axial Symptoms a Feature of Early Parkinson’s Disease? Plos One 11, 13 (2016).
Google Scholar
Morris, R. et al. Gait Rather Than Cognition Predicts Decline in Specific Cognitive Domains in Early Parkinson’s Disease. J. Gerontol. Ser. A-Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 72, 1656–1662 (2017).
Google Scholar
Muller, B., Assmus, J., Herlofson, K., Larsen, J. P. & Tysnes, O. B. Importance of motor vs. non-motor symptoms for health-related quality of life in early Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 19, 1027–1032 (2013).PubMed
Google Scholar
Muller, B. et al. Autonomic symptoms and dopaminergic treatment in de novo Parkinson’s disease. Acta Neurol. Scand. 127, 290–294 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Naisby, J. et al. Trajectories of pain over 6 years in early Parkinson’s disease: ICICLE-PD. J. Neurol. 268, 4759–4767 (2021).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Oh, Y. S. et al. Association between nocturnal/supine hypertension and restless legs syndrome in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Sci. 344, 186–189 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Ongre, S. O., Larsen, J. P., Tysnes, O. B. & Herlofson, K. Fatigue in early Parkinson’s disease: the Norwegian ParkWest study. Eur. J. Neurol. 24, 105–111 (2017).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Ou, R. W. et al. Progression of Fatigue in Early Parkinson’s Disease: A 3-Year Prospective Cohort Study. Front. Aging Neurosci. 13, 8 (2021).
Google Scholar
Ou, R. W. et al. Evolution of Apathy in Early Parkinson’s Disease: A 4-Years Prospective Cohort Study. Front. Aging Neurosci. 12, 9 (2021).
Google Scholar
Pan, C. X. et al. Subjective Cognitive Complaints in Newly-Diagnosed Parkinson’s Disease With and Without Mild Cognitive Impairment. Front. Neurosci. 15, 8 (2021).
Google Scholar
Paracha, M., Herbst, K., Kieburtz, K. & Venuto, C. S. Prevalence and Incidence of Nonmotor Symptoms in Individuals with and Without Parkinson’s Disease. Mov. Disord. Clin. Pract. 9, 961–966 (2022).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pellicano, C. et al. Neuropsychiatric and cognitive symptoms and body side of onset of parkinsonism in unmedicated Parkinson’s disease patients. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 21, 1096–1100 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Picillo, M. et al. Gender differences in non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: A 2-years follow-up study on previously untreated patients. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 20, 850–854 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Picillo, M. et al. The PRIAMO study: age- and sex-related relationship between prodromal constipation and disease phenotype in early Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. 268, 448–454 (2021).PubMed
Google Scholar
Podgorny, P. J., Suchowersky, O., Romanchuk, K. G. & Feasby, T. E. Evidence for small fiber neuropathy in early Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 28, 94–99 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Roggendorf, J. et al. Arm swing asymmetry in Parkinson’s disease measured with ultrasound based motion analysis during treadmill gait. Gait Posture 35, 116–120 (2012).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Rolinski, M. et al. REM sleep behaviour disorder is associated with worse quality of life and other non-motor features in early Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 85, 560–566 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Santangelo, G. et al. Relationship between apathy and cognitive dysfunctions in de novo untreated Parkinson’s disease: a prospective longitudinal study. Eur. J. Neurol. 22, 253–260 (2015).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Santos-Garcia, D. et al. Non-motor symptom burden is strongly correlated to motor complications in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Eur. J. Neurol. 27, 1210–1223 (2020).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Schindlbeck, K. A. et al. Somatosensory symptoms in unmedicated de novo patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm 123, 211–217 (2016).PubMed
Google Scholar
Serra, M. C. et al. Increased odds of bladder and bowel symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease. Neurourol. Urodyn. 37, 1344–1348 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Siciliano, M. et al. Predictors of fatigue severity in early, de novo Parkinson disease patients: A 1-year longitudinal study. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 79, 3–8 (2020).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Simuni, T. et al. Correlates of excessive daytime sleepiness in de novo Parkinson’s disease: A case control study. Mov Disord 30, 1371–1381 (2015).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Simuni, T. et al. Baseline prevalence and longitudinal evolution of non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease: the PPMI cohort. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 89, 78–88 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Skrabal, D. et al. Articulatory undershoot of vowels in isolated REM sleep behavior disorder and early Parkinson’s disease. npj Parkinsons Dis 8, 7 (2022).
Google Scholar
Song, Y., Gu, Z. Q., An, J., Chan, P. & Chinese Parkinson Study, G. Gender differences on motor and non-motor symptoms of de novo patients with early Parkinson’s disease. Neurol. Sci. 35, 1991–1996 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Stankovic, I. et al. Longitudinal assessment of autonomic dysfunction in early Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 66, 74–79 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Stankovic, I. et al. Psychiatric Symptoms in the Initial Motor Stage of Parkinson’s Disease. J. Neuropsychiatr. Clin. Neurosci. 28, 205–210 (2016).
Google Scholar
Sung, H. Y., Park, J. W. & Kim, J. S. The Frequency and Severity of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Patients with Early Parkinson’s Disease. J. Mov. Disord. 7, 7–12 (2014).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Szewczyk-Krolikowski, K. et al. The influence of age and gender on motor and non-motor features of early Parkinson’s disease: Initial findings from the Oxford Parkinson Disease Center (OPDC) discovery cohort. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 20, 99–105 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Tholfsen, L. K., Larsen, J. P., Schulz, J., Tysnes, O. B. & Gjerstad, M. D. Development of excessive daytime sleepiness in early Parkinson disease. Neurology 85, 162–168 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Tholfsen, L. K., Larsen, J. P., Schulz, J., Tysnes, O. B. & Gjerstad, M. D. Changes in insomnia subtypes in early Parkinson disease. Neurology 88, 352–358 (2017).PubMed
Google Scholar
Tosin, M. H. S., Simuni, T., Stebbins, G. T. & Cedarbaum, J. M. Tracking Emergence of New Motor and Non-Motor Symptoms Using the MDS-UPDRS: A Novel Outcome Measure for Early Parkinson’s Disease? J. Parkinsons Dis. 12, 1345–1351 (2022).CAS
PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Tveiten, O. V. et al. Treatment in early Parkinson’s disease: the Norwegian ParkWest study. Acta Neurol. Scand. 128, 107–113 (2013).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wu, L., Mu, N., Yang, F., Zang, J. & Zheng, J. P. A study of the non-motor symptoms in early Parkinson’s disease with olfactory deficits. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 20, 3857–3862 (2016).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Wu, Y. et al. Non-motor symptoms and quality of life in tremor dominant vs postural instability gait disorder Parkinson’s disease patients. Acta Neurol. Scand. 133, 330–337 (2016).CAS
PubMed
Google Scholar
Yang, H. J., Kim, Y. E., Yun, J. Y., Kim, H. J. & Jeon, B. S. Identifying the Clusters within Nonmotor Manifestations in Early Parkinson’s Disease by Using Unsupervised Cluster Analysis. Plos One 9, 5 (2014).
Google Scholar
Yoo, S. W., Kim, J. S., Oh, Y. S., Ryu, D. W. & Lee, K. S. Trouble Concentrating is an Easily Overlooked Symptom of Orthostatic Hypotension in Early Parkinson’s Disease. J Parkinsons Dis 9, 405–411 (2019).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Gu, Z. Q., An, J., Wang, C. D. & Chan, P. Non-Motor Symptoms in Treated and Untreated Chinese Patients with Early Parkinson’s Disease. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 232, 129–136 (2014).PubMed
Google Scholar
Zhang, H. et al. A prospective study of freezing of gait with early Parkinson disease in Chinese patients. Medicine 95, e4056 (2016).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Zhou, M. X. et al. Oculomotor impairments in de novo Parkinson’s disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 14, 9 (2022).
Google Scholar
Zucco, G. M., Rovatti, F. & Stevenson, R. J. Olfactory asymmetric dysfunction in early Parkinson patients affected by unilateral disorder. Front. Psychol. 6, 4 (2015).
Google Scholar
Holden, S. K., Finseth, T., Sillau, S. H. & Berman, B. D. Progression of MDS-UPDRS Scores Over Five Years in De Novo Parkinson Disease from the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative Cohort. Mov Disord Clin Pract 5, 47–53 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Tosin, M. H., Goetz, C. G. & Stebbins, G. T. Patient With Parkinson Disease and Care Partner Perceptions of Key Domains Affecting Health-Related Quality of Life: Systematic Review. Neurology 102, e208028 (2024).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Regnault, A. et al. Does the MDS-UPDRS provide the precision to assess progression in early Parkinson’s disease? Learnings from the Parkinson’s progression marker initiative cohort. J Neurol 266, 1927–1936 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Tosin, M. H. S. et al. Does MDS-UPDRS Provide Greater Sensitivity to Mild Disease than UPDRS in De Novo Parkinson’s Disease? Mov Disord Clin Pract 8, 1092–1099 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Martinez-Martin, P. et al. Validation study of the hoehn and yahr scale included in the MDS-UPDRS. Mov Disord 33, 651–652 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Siddiqi, B. & Koemeter-Cox, A. A Call to Action: Promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Parkinson’s Research and Care. J Parkinsons Dis 11, 905–908 (2021).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Giddens, J. Concepts for nursing practice. Second edn, (Elsevier 2017).O’Toole, M. T. Mosby’s medical dictionary. Eleventh edn, (Elsevier, 2022).Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ (2024).Simuni, T. et al. Biological Definition of Neuronal alpha-Synuclein Disease: Towards an Integrated Staging System for Research. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10001310 (2023).Stern, C. et al. Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evid Synth 18, 2108–2118 (2020).PubMed
Google Scholar
Brady, S. S. et al. Development of Conceptual Models to Guide Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy: Synthesizing Traditional and Contemporary Paradigms. Health Promot Pract 21, 510–524 (2020).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lewin, S. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implement Sci 13, 10 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Munthe-Kaas, H. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 3: how to assess methodological limitations. Implement Sci 13, 9 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Colvin, C. J. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 4: how to assess coherence. Implement Sci 13, 13 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Glenton, C. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 5: how to assess adequacy of data. Implement Sci 13, 14 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Noyes, J. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data. Implement Sci 13, 4 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Lewin, S. et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implement Sci 13, 2 (2018).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Pearson, A. et al. A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13, 121–131 (2015).PubMed
Google Scholar
Aromataris, E. & Munn, Z. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/ (2017).Stephenson, D. et al. Precompetitive Data Sharing as a Catalyst to Address Unmet Needs in Parkinson’s Disease. J Parkinsons Dis 5, 581–594 (2015).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Goetz, C. G. et al. Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord 23, 2129–2170 (2008).PubMed
Google Scholar
XMind. http://www.xmind.net (n.d.).Mammen, J. R. & Mammen, C. R. Beyond concept analysis: Uses of mind mapping software for visual representation, management, and analysis of diverse digital data. Res Nurs Health 41, 583–592 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Lerner, A., Mammen, J., Tyo, M., Adam, J. & Bale, C. (Fox Insight, nd).World Health Organization. Guide to qualitative evidence synthesis: evidence-informed policy-making using research in the EVIPNET framework. (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, 2021).Downe, S. et al. Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) for Guidelines: Paper 1 - Using qualitative evidence synthesis to inform guideline scope and develop qualitative findings statements. Health Res Policy Syst 17, 76 (2019).PubMed
PubMed Central
Google Scholar
Noyes, J. et al. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series-paper 1: introduction. J Clin Epidemiol 97, 35–38 (2018).PubMed
Google Scholar
Download referencesAcknowledgementsThis work was sponsored by the Michael J Fox Foundation. The researchers thank the many individuals who contributed to this work including Dr. Michelle Campbell of the FDA. The content is based solely on the perspectives of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Critical Path Institute nor an endorsement by FDA/HHS or the U.S. Government.Author informationAuthor notesThese authors contributed equally: Jennifer R. Mammen, Jamie L. Adams.Authors and AffiliationsUniversity of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Dartmouth, MA, USAJennifer R. Mammen & Mirinda TyoCenter for Health + Technology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USAJamie L. AdamsDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USAJamie L. Adams & William BarbosaVector Psychometric Group, LLC, Chapel Hill, NC, USARikki MangrumThe Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, New York City, NY, USAYuge Xiao & Catherine M. KopilPeople affected by Parkinson’s – patient and family advisory panel, New York City, NY, USAWilliam Barbosa, Christopher Redmond, Cheryl Carter, Kelly Cifelli, Robert Cifelli, Hope Maruzo, Jim Meeker, Gerry Shultz & Colbren ThomasParkinson’s UK, London, UKClaire BaleRoche, Basel, SwitzerlandEvan DaviesUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, CanadaConnie MarrasParkinson’s disease and Movement Disorders Center, Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The University of Ottawa Brain and Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, CanadaTiago MestreUCB, Department of Patient Centred Outcomes Research, Bulle, SwitzerlandThomas MorelNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USATanya SimuniDepartment of Neurological Sciences, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USAGlenn T. StebbinsUniversity of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Philadelphia, PA, USADaniel WeintraubCritical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USADiane StephensonAuthorsJennifer R. MammenView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarJamie L. AdamsView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarRikki MangrumView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarYuge XiaoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarWilliam BarbosaView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarMirinda TyoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarChristopher RedmondView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarCheryl CarterView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarKelly CifelliView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarRobert CifelliView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarHope MaruzoView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarJim MeekerView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarGerry ShultzView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarColbren ThomasView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarClaire BaleView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarEvan DaviesView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarCatherine M. KopilView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarConnie MarrasView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarTiago MestreView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarThomas MorelView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarTanya SimuniView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarGlenn T. StebbinsView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarDaniel WeintraubView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarDiane StephensonView author publicationsYou can also search for this author inPubMed Google ScholarContributionsAuthorship contributions were as follows: development of consensus model and literature review approaches (J.M., J.L.A., R.M., C.M., G.T.S., M.T., T.M., Y.X., W.B., M.T., C.R., M.C., C.C., K.C., R.C., H.M., J.M., G.S., C.T., C.B., E.D., C.K., D.S.), review of literature and data analysis (J.M., J.L.A., R.M., G.T.S., W.B., M.T.), interpretation of findings, drafting and revising of model and manuscript (J.M., J.L.A., R.M., C.M., G.T.S., M.T., T.M., Y.X., W.B., M.T., C.R., M.C., C.C., K.C., R.C., H.M., J.M., G.S., C.T., C.B., E.D., C.K., D.S.).Corresponding authorCorrespondence to
Jennifer R. Mammen.Ethics declarations
Competing interests
C.M. has received funding from Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF). G.T.S. is an employee of Rush University and has consulting and advisory board membership with honoraria for: Acadia Pharmaceuticals; Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Biogen, Inc.; Ceregene, Inc.; CHDI Management, Inc.; the Cleveland Clinic Foundation; Ingenix Pharmaceutical Services (i3 Research); MedGenesis Therapeutix, Inc.; Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Tools-4-Patients; Ultragenyx, Inc.; and the Sunshine Care Foundation. He has received grants from and done research for: the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the Dystonia Coalition, CHDI, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, and CBD Solutions, and has received honoraria from: the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, the American Academy of Neurology, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and the Alzheimer’s Association. J.L.A. has received research support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Critical Path for Parkinson’s, NIH/NINDS, Biogen, the Huntington Study Group, and PhotoPharmics; received compensation as a consultant/steering committee/advisory board member from the Huntington Study Group, the Parkinson Study Group, AbbVie, VisualDx, BioSensics, Sana Biotechnology, Neuron23, Biohaven, and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research; received honoraria for speaking from the Huntington Study Group, the Parkinson Study Group, American Neurological Association, Lundbeck, and the Ohio State University. J.R.M. has received research support from the NIH/NINR, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF) and consulted for MJFF and Lundbeck HS. M.T. has received funding from Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF). T.M. is an employee of UCB Pharma. In the last 12 months T.S. has served as a consultant for AskBio, Amneal, Blue Rock Therapeutics, Critical Path for Parkinson’s Consortium (CPP), Denali, General Electric, Kyowa, Neuroderm/ MTPA, Prevail/ Lilly, Roche, Sanofi, Sinopia, Takeda and Vanqua Bio. T.S. served on the ad board for AskBio, Amneal, Biohaven, Denali, GAIN, General Electric, Kyowa, MJFF, Neuron23, Parkinson Study Group, Prevail/ Lilly, and Roche. T.S. has served as a member of the scientific advisory board of Koneksa, Neuroderm/ MTPA, Sanofi and UCB. T.S. has received research funding from Amneal, Biogen, Neuroderm, Prevail, Roche,UCB and is an investigator for NINDS, MJFF, Parkinson’s Foundation. D.W. has received funding from Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF). The remaining authors (Y.X., W.B., M.T., C.R., M.C., C.C., K.C., R.C., H.M., J.M., G.S., C.T., C.B., E.D., C.K., D.S.,) have no relevant conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional informationPublisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.Supplementary informationSupplemental material - Consensus conceptual model early PDSupporting data for consensus conceptual model of early PDRights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissionsAbout this articleCite this articleMammen, J.R., Adams, J.L., Mangrum, R. et al. Systematic review and consensus conceptual model of meaningful symptoms and functional impacts in early Parkinson’s Disease.
npj Parkinsons Dis. 11, 65 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-025-00907-2Download citationReceived: 06 May 2024Accepted: 10 March 2025Published: 03 April 2025DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41531-025-00907-2Share this articleAnyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:Get shareable linkSorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.Copy to clipboard
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative