Neurology · 2018
Driving impairment and crash risk in Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thompson Trevor, Poulter Damian, Miles Clare, Solmi Marco, Veronese Nicola, Carvalho André F, Stubbs Brendon, Uc Ergun Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.