Clinical and physiological assessments for elucidating falls risk in Parkinson's disease.
This note indexes a cited or audit-added source. It may be an original study, review, guideline, form or methods reference. Treat the specific design and the evidence below as authoritative; a source note is not automatically a primary study.
DOI: 10.1002/mds.22561
Bibliographic record from the original reports
Access labels embedded in these original reference strings are historical. Current access and exact checked components are stated separately below.
Latt MD, Lord SR, Morris JGL, Fung VSC. Clinical and physiological assessments for elucidating falls risk in Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders. 2009;24(9):1280–1289. DOI 10.1002/mds.22561
Conditions: COND-PD Parkinson’s disease
Scoped audit evidence
These are source- and component-level audit summaries as of 3 October 2026. Access and comparison scope can differ by report; none certifies every result or the underlying raw data.
Parkinson’s disease — strength
- access status: full_main_text_available
STR-09-06
STR-09-01
STR-09-02
STR-09-03
STR-09-04
STR-09-05
Limitations: Only current scoped checks; archived captures not authenticated against live originals.
Parkinson’s disease strength
- current access: full_main_text_available
- primary version: Archived licensed publisher HTML/text capture; figures captions only
Parkinson’s disease strength component — Prospective sample, eligibility, falls collection and dynamometer method
Methods and Results confirm 113 participants, all completed 12 months, 51 fallers, 2160 falls;monthly calendars plus monthly calls;participant-level any fall outcome. No walking aid, MMSE≥24, same researcher, usually mid-morning, self-reported ON. Spring gauges quantify maximal knee extension/flexion and ankle dorsiflexion in kg force. Joint angles, fixation, repetitions and aggregation are not sufficiently specified in main text.
Source locator: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22561; Library original archived audit evidence Methods Participants/Physiological Measures/Follow-Up; Results
Limitations: AI-assisted comparison with archived licensed capture; transcription accuracy was not independently verified against the live publisher original.
Parkinson’s disease strength component — Exact univariate and adjusted weaker-leg odds ratios and scaling
Table 4 weaker-leg knee OR.19 [.09, .41], stronger-leg .77 [.52, 1.13]. Table 5 weaker-leg OR.34 [.14, .82] explanatory, .28 [.11, .68] combined; Results p.009/.002. Both footnotes explicitly standardize strength to sample SD scores. These are per-SD odds ratios, despite kg labels. Explanatory covariates freezing, FAB, axial posture, coordinated stability; combined freezing, coordinated stability, previous falls.
Source locator: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22561; Library original archived audit evidence Tables 4–5 and their footnotes; Explanatory/Combined Model Results
Limitations: AI-assisted comparison with archived licensed capture; transcription accuracy was not independently verified against the live publisher original.
Parkinson’s disease strength component — Model candidate sets, absent validation and bounded interpretation
Statistical analysis excludes past falls, UPDRS, HY from explanatory candidates; combined allows all candidates. Discussion says collinearity limited strength entry to weaker knee extension. Numerical entry/removal thresholds, forced age/sex adjustment and precise selection algorithm are not given. Main article does not report bootstrap/cross-validation/external validation, AUC, calibration or isolated incremental strength test. Report appropriately distinguishes model performance from a force cutoff and causal claims.
Source locator: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22561; Library original archived audit evidence Statistical Analysis; Discussion; all model Results
Limitations: AI-assisted comparison with archived licensed capture; transcription accuracy was not independently verified against the live publisher original.
Parkinson’s disease strength component — Classification fractions, published percentage discrepancy and clinical-only conflict
Primary body matches 39/51 and 51/62 explanatory, 39/51 and 50/62 combined. It labels 39/51 as 77%, whereas arithmetic is 76.4706%, ordinarily 76% at whole-percent precision. This is a published percentage/arithmetic discrepancy, not conventional rounding. Abstract clinical fractions 38/51 and 45/62 differ from Results 40/51 and 47/62; the report accurately identifies the conflict. Other percentages agree with ordinary rounding.
Source locator: https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22561; Library original archived audit evidence Abstract and all three model Results; audit evidence record
Limitations: AI-assisted comparison with archived licensed capture; transcription accuracy was not independently verified against the live publisher original.
Linked audit findings
Reports citing this source
- Strength muscle power and rapid force production assessment in Parkinson’s disease · reference 9 · original reference
Update record
- 2026-10-03: Created from the supplied reports and final scoped audit. New evidence should be appended with source version, access date, exact locator and affected report links.
Updating the wiki · Evidence and status guide