Table 2.
Clinical characteristics of the subjects in the study.
| Group | Cons-Pro-PD | nCons-PD | Cons-clinic-PD | Test statistic | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| number of patients (n = ) | 48 | 49 | 31 | – | p |
| Phenotype | c2 = 5.697 (2#)B | 0.223 | |||
| PIDG | 30 (62.5%) | 28 (57.1%) | 23 (74.2%) | ||
| Indeterminate | 8 (16.7%) | 4 (8.2%) | 2 (6.5%) | ||
| TD | 10 (20.8%) | 17 (34.7%) | 6 (19.4%) | ||
| H-Y (on-stage) | 2 (2–3) | 2 (1–3) | 3 (2–4) | c2 = 11.28 (2)C | 0.004 |
| MDS-UPDRS-I | 11 (7–19.75) | 7 (4.5–10.5) | 14 (9–18) | c2 = 16.439 (2)C | 0.000 |
| MDS-UPDRS-II | 17 (9–28.5) | 11 (8–19) | 22 (15–34) | c2 = 15.36 (2)C | 0.000 |
| MDS-UPDRS-III | 36 (22–58) | 30 (20–48) | 48 (33–80) | c2 = 8.307 (2)C | 0.016 |
| MDS-UPDRS-IV | 0.938 (0–10) | 1.204 (0–18) | 3.581 (0–21) | c2 = 9.580 (2)C | 0.001 |
| MDS-UPDRS global score | 67.5 (40.5–97.5) | 51 (33.5–74) | 79 (65–126) | c2 = 15.349 (2)C | 0.000 |
| Parkinson's disease therapy | |||||
| (LED) mg | 443.75 (162.5–600) | 337.5 (37.5–400) | 537.5 (400–637.5) | c2 = 18.491 (2)C | 0.000 |
| Treatment Naïve | 11 (22.9%) | 12 (24.5%) | 3 (9.7%) | c2 = 2.896 (2)B | 0.235 |
| Oral levodopa | 35 (72.9%) | 35 (71.4%) | 30 (96.8%) | c2 = 8.356 (2)B | 0.015 |
| Dopamine agonist | 22 (45.8%) | 26 (53.1%) | 19 (61.3%) | c2 = 1.820 (2)B | 0.402 |
| Monoamine oxidase B inhibitor | 5 (10.4%) | 1 (2%) | 4 (12.9%) | c2 = 3.834 (2)B | 0.147 |
| Catechol-O-methyl transferase inhibitor | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (2%) | 1 (3.2%) | c2 = 1.392 (2)B | 0.498 |
| Anticholinergicagent drugs | 2 (4.2%) | 6 (12.2%) | 3 (9.7%) | c2 = 2.076 (2)B | 0.354 |
| Amantadine | 15 (31.3%) | 11 (22.4%) | 14 (45.2%) | c2 = 4.599 (2)B | 0.102 |
| Group | Cons-Pro-PD | nCons-PD | Cons-clinic-PD | Test statistic | p Value |
| Number of patients (n = ) | 48 | 49 | 31 | – | p |
| NMS global score | 44.5 (23.25–73) | 29 (15–55.5) | 61 (34–90) | c2 = 12.487 (2)C | 0.002 |
| ESS (scores) | 10 (1–14) | 3 (1.5–10.5) | 9 (4–16) | c2 = 6.074 (2)C | 0.048 |
| RBD, case (%) | 15 (31.3%) | 5 (10.2%) | 12 (38.7%) | c2 = 9.829 (2)C | 0.007 |
| PDSS global score | 111 (76–128.5) | 117 (92–129) | 98 (66–113) | c2 = 9.347 (2)C | 0.009 |
| RLS, case (%) | 15 (31.3%) | 13 (26.5%) | 14 (45.2%) | c2 = 3.075 (2)B | 0.215 |
| PSQI global score | 9 (3–13) | 8 (4.5–13) | 13 (8–15) | c2 = 6.585 (2)C | 0.037 |
| HAMA (scores) | 6 (2–11.75) | 4 (1–10.5) | 7 (2–14) | c2 = 2.266 (2)C | 0.322 |
| HAMD (scores) | 7 (3–15.25) | 5 (3–11.5) | 10 (2–16) | c2 = 1.157 (2)C | 0.561 |
| Moca global score | 17.42 ± 5.78 | 17.33 ± 6.56 | 13.10 ± 6.37 | F = 5.535 (2)A | 0.005 |
| MMSE | 26 (20.75–28) | 26 (24–28) | 25 (18–27) | c2 = 4.210 (2)C | 0.122 |
| PACQOL | 27 (17.25–2.25) | – | 25 (16–47) | Z = −0.121D | 0.904 |
| PACSYM | 4 (3–5) | – | 4 (3–7) | Z = −1.281D | 0.2 |
| GDNF (pg/ml) | 360.72 ± 93.18 | 528.44 ± 136.87 | 331.36 ± 97.74 | F = 38.734 (2)A | 0.000 |
One-way ANOVA was used to analyze results in A. The LSD exact probability approach was used to compare pairs of groupsC. Chi-square test on a row multiplied list B. The p value of the pairwise comparison between groups had to be corrected in order to use the Kruskal–Wallis test, and the method was p/3 = 0.0167. p <0.05 shows that the three groups are not exactly the same, so the next step of pair comparison between the groups is needed to determine the reasons for the variations. The # symbol denotes degrees of independence. Bold values were statistically significant.