. 2019 Nov-Dec;45(6):e20180148. doi: 10.1590/1806-3713/e20180148

Table 3. Mean lung function parameters and their corresponding standard deviations in controls and in patients at different stages of Parkinson’s disease.

Variable	Controls	Parkinson’s disease			p*
	Controls	H&Y1	H&Y2	H&Y3/4
	N = 17 (100%)	n = 17 (35%)	n = 19 (39%)	n = 13 (26%)
FVC, L	2.6 (0.6)	2.9 (0.6)	2.8 (1.0)	2.2 (0.9)	0.06
FVC, % predicted	88 (14)	85 (12)	79 (18)	61 (22)	0.0006
FEV₁, L	2.1 (0.5)	2.4 (0.5)	2.2 (0.7)	1.7 (0.7)	0.01
FEV₁, % predicted	90 (18)	84 (14)	79 (18)	59 (20)	0.0002
FEV₁/FVC	79.3 (4.5)	79.7 (5.3)	78.9 (6.9)	77.6 (4.3)	0.91
FEV₁/FVC, % predicted	100 (5)	100 (7)	100 (9)	990 (18)	0.97
PEF, L	5.0 (1.5)	6.0 (1.8)	4.8 (1.5)	3.2 (1.6)	0.0005
PEF, % predicted	68 (15)	72 (19)	56 (16)	36 (14)	0.0001
FEF_25-75%	2.2 (0.8)	2.5 (0.7)	2.1 (0.7)	1.5 (0.9)	0.01
FEF_{25-75 %}, % predicted	98 (40)	98 (34)	84 (29)	61 (32)	0.01

H&Y: Hoehn & Yahr ¹⁰ ; H&Y1: patients with H&Y stage 1 Parkinson’s disease; H&Y2: patients with H&Y stage 2 Parkinson’s disease; and H&Y3/4: patients with H&Y stage 3/4 Parkinson’s disease. *One-way ANOVA and post hoc t-test (least significant difference). FVC, % predicted: H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p < 0.001); H&Y2 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.004); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p < 0.001). FEV₁: H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.002) and H&Y2 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.012). FEV₁, % predicted: H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p < 0.001); H&Y2 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.003); H&Y2 vs. controls (p = 0.05); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p < 0.001). PEF: H&Y1 vs. H&Y2 (p = 0.026); H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p < 0.001); H&Y2 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.008); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p = 0.004). PEF, % predicted: H&Y1 vs. H&Y2 (p = 0.003); H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p < 0.001); H&Y2 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.001); H&Y2 vs. controls (p = 0.003); and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p < 0,001). FEF_25-75%: H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.001) and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p = 0.0043). FEF_25-75%, % predicted: H&Y1 vs. H&Y3/4 (p = 0.003) and H&Y3/4 vs. controls (p = 0.003).