ライフサイエンスコーパス: UPDRS

1 UPDRS motor ratings correlated with SOR values obtained

2 UPDRS scores were 43% (p=0.04; Cohen's d=1.62) better wi

3 kinesia motor (p < 0.05) and ADL (p < 0.005) UPDRS subscores.

4 vidual patients with an average error of 15% UPDRS improvement.

5 Eleven of the 27 UPDRS-III items were statistically more frequently affec

6 ied Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part 3 (UPDRS-III).

7 ng Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale 3 (UPDRS 3).

8 he CRST (p = 0.0008), ICARS (p = 0.001), and UPDRS (p = 0.0094).

9 , 0.10; mean follow-up, 2.30; P < .001), and UPDRS part III scores were significantly worse for patie

10 , 1.72; mean follow-up, 4.44; P = .002), and UPDRS part II (mean baseline, 0.88; mean follow-up, 2.01

11 ance (SMD, 0.54; 95% CI, -0.03 to 1.12), and UPDRS score (SMD, -0.49; 95% CI, -1.04 to 0.06).

12 mination, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and UPDRS part II and part III scores were observed between

13 ncluding ipsilateral count density ratio and UPDRS scores which are indicators of degeneration and se

14 ation status and cognitive domain scores and UPDRS-III scores.

15 (4.67 [3.21-6.78]), the presence of apathy (UPDRS item 4) (1.94 [1.33-2.82]), a higher levodopa equi

16 ot motor impairment subjectively assessed by UPDRS part 2.

17 ily living without medication as measured by UPDRS-II improved from a mean (SD) of 20.6 (6.0) to 12.4

18 r function without medication as measured by UPDRS-III improved from a mean (SD) of 42.8 (9.4) to 21.

19 mean overall motor improvement, measured by UPDRS-III, after GPi DBS, compared to STN DBS (17.5 +/-

20 aily living (UPDRS-II), motor complications (UPDRS-IV), neuropsychological and speech assessments, as

21 The mean adjusted contralateral UPDRS III score with cZI stimulation was 3.1 (76% reduct

22 Conversely, UPDRS-III on-medication scores deteriorated at 5 and 8 y

23 t was correlated with disease severity, i.e. UPDRS-III motor scoring.

24 At the 6-month endpoint, UPDRS score for the AAV2-GAD group decreased by 8.1 poin

25 ty and Depression Scale), clinical features (UPDRS), and drug consumption.

26 dds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.28-2.86]), higher UPDRS parts II and III scores (4.67 [3.21-6.78]), the pr

27 d medial occipital cortices, (3) with higher UPDRS-III scores in the putamen (all p<0.05 corrected fo

28 However, UPDRS scores increased over time after DBS.

29 d Parkinson's disease rating scale part III (UPDRS III) score in the medication-off state of more tha

30 ied Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) and Clinical Dementia Rating scores and neuro

31 d Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) improvement (63 patients).

32 rimary outcome was change in UPDRS part III (UPDRS-III) off-medication scores from baseline to 24 mon

33 Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, part III (UPDRS-III), while patients were receiving stimulation bu

34 ied Parkinson Disease Rating Scale Part III [UPDRS-III] 7-day OFF scores [Deltabaseline 24 months, Me

35 Disease Rating Scale motor score (part III) (UPDRS-III) between 25 and 45] and motor fluctuations.

36 es, or different levels of motor impairment (UPDRS-III).

37 CVT-301 can improve UPDRS motor scores of patients with Parkinson's disease

38 GPi DBS improved UPDRS motor ratings (36%, P < 0.001) and significantly i

39 ee times a day without adequate improvement (UPDRS score decreased from 23 to 20 points).

40 StimOFF]) and symptomatic motor improvement (UPDRS-III ON scores [%Deltabaseline 24 months, MedON/Sti

41 correlated with the change from baseline in UPDRS at the 46-month evaluation (r = - 0.40; P =.001).

42 icantly greater improvement from baseline in UPDRS scores compared with the sham group over the 6-mon

43 The primary endpoint was the mean change in UPDRS III scores (assessed by site investigators who wer

44 The primary endpoint was the change in UPDRS motor score from predose to 30 min postdose, asses

45 The primary efficacy endpoint was change in UPDRS off-state motor score at 12 months.

46 The primary outcome was change in UPDRS part III (UPDRS-III) off-medication scores from ba

47 The change in UPDRS score from baseline to week 80 was -1.0+/-13.1 poi

48 t 15 months (n=411), adjusted mean change in UPDRS total score showed no significant difference betwe

49 Primary outcomes included changes in UPDRS and dyskinesia scores, quality-of-life measures, a

50 Longitudinal changes in UPDRS motor ratings and caudate and putamen (18)F-FDOPA

51 There was no difference in UPDRS motor improvement between targets.

52 The least-squares mean difference in UPDRS motor score change from predose to 30 min postdose

53 We investigated whether improvement in UPDRS 3 scores in rigidity, bradykinesia, postural stabi

54 d significantly with clinical improvement in UPDRS motor ratings (P < 0.03).

55 off state), and 33% or higher improvement in UPDRS-III medication-on score.

56 bjects had lower mean overall improvement in UPDRS-III scores compared with I or TD subjects (8.7 +/-

57 cant difference for PT vs no intervention in UPDRS scores (standardized mean difference [SMD], -1.09;

58 e of progression of symptoms, as measured in UPDRS points per week, was 0.04+/-0.23 in the early-star

59 significantly greater disease progression in UPDRS-II score and the postural instability and gait dis

60 instability and gait disturbance subscore in UPDRS-III than did the other PwP after adjustment for ag

61 ge and Motor plus Activities of Daily Living UPDRS change, measured in untreated patients, required t

62 further included activities of daily living (UPDRS-II), motor complications (UPDRS-IV), neuropsycholo

63 ger patients (r = -0.25; P < .01) with lower UPDRS II and III scores (r = -0.50; P < .01) and no anti

64 MDS-UPDRS Part I total mean (SD) scores increased from basel

65 MDS-UPDRS Part III and video recordings were obtained to com

66 MDS-UPDRS part III scores at baseline were approximately 15

67 Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part 3 (MDS-UPDRS) and Burke-Fahn-Marsden dystonia scale (BFM).

68 e second treated side improved by 64.3% (MDS-UPDRS III score, 17.0 [IQR, 16.0-19.5] prior to the seco

69 D) disease duration was 9.9 years (4.7), MDS-UPDRS Part 1-3 OFF score was 66.4 (19.3), ON score was 4

70 BA displayed worse outcomes in UPSIT and MDS-UPDRS III compared with HC.

71 walk ES=0.20 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.45) and MDS-UPDRS III ES=-0.30 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.54)) in favour of e

72 worse scores in UPSIT, UMSARS, MoCA and MDS-UPDRS III than HC, while Het GBA displayed worse outcome

73 yed start, -94%; early start, -118%) and MDS-UPDRS Part II (delayed start, -48%; early start, -40%) t

74 III score in the OFF and ON states, and MDS-UPDRS Part II score, was sustained for 4 years from the

75 a significant improvement in DT-TUG and MDS-UPDRS-III for up to 3 months.

76 gnificant replication of higher baseline MDS-UPDRS motor score, male sex, and increased age, as well

77 th female sex (p=0.008), higher baseline MDS-UPDRS Part II scores (p<0.001) and more severe motor phe

78 ferentiating XDP patients with different MDS-UPDRS scores from controls, XDP freezing of gait, and dy

79 valent dose, sex, age, disease duration, MDS-UPDRS III score at the first assessment, duration of fol

80 ML-based algorithms estimated MDS-UPDRS scores (parkinsonism) and dystonia-specific data f

81 nd lower risk subjects were compared for MDS-UPDRS part III score (and derivations of this) to identi

82 y of bradykinesia sub-score derived from MDS-UPDRS part III (r = -0.42; P = 0.02).

83 Higher MDS-UPDRS-III (off-medicine) scores (mid: adjusted beta 0.10

84 der Society - Unified PD Rating Scale-I (MDS-UPDRS-I) underwent open-label nabilone titration (0.25 m

85 ed Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale III (MDS-UPDRS III) postintervention score from baseline.

86 rkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (MDS-UPDRS III) score at the last assessment as the outcome a

87 kinson's Disease Rating Scale, part III (MDS-UPDRS III), for the treated side in the off-medication s

88 rkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III [MDS-UPDRS III]) in the off-medication state (ie, after at le

89 group had an additional deterioration in MDS-UPDRS III score while not taking medication at 24 months

90 associated with a more rapid decline in MDS-UPDRS III score.

91 ange from predose to 30 min post-dose in MDS-UPDRS part 3 score at week 12 was -11.1 (SE 1.46, 95% CI

92 tor progression, assessed as a change in MDS-UPDRS Part III score in the OFF and ON states, and MDS-U

93 decline (a smaller increase in score) in MDS-UPDRS Part III scores in the OFF state (delayed start, -

94 The least squares mean change in MDS-UPDRS parts II and III combined score was 7.29 (SE 1.36)

95 with UPDRS part III scores (increase in MDS-UPDRS per doubling of odds 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.72; p<

96 ion (as assessed by the annual change in MDS-UPDRS score) into the final models of treatment effect r

97 Secondary end points included MDS-UPDRS subscale scores and striatal binding as assessed o

98 ween participants randomized to inosine (MDS-UPDRS score, 11.1 [95% CI, 9.7-12.6] points per year) an

99 The mean MDS-UPDRS III score for the more affected side decreased fro

100 after a 2-month washout period, the mean MDS-UPDRS motor scores in the off-medication state were 17.7

101 The baseline mean MDS-UPDRS scores were 32.0 in the placebo group, 31.5 in the

102 The mean MDS-UPDRS total score at baseline was 34.3 in the deferipron

103 worse outcome at 6 years in UPSIT, MoCA, MDS-UPDRS III and BDI.

104 On the contrary, non-motor (MDS-UPDRS Part I: -13.8 +/- 1.3, p < 0.001, Hedges' g = 3.0)

105 There was no difference in the change of MDS-UPDRS-3 OFF from baseline to 6 months between groups (P

106 with respect to change in sum scores on MDS-UPDRS parts II and III: difference versus placebo -0.39

107 Secondary end points included other MDS-UPDRS subscores at 6, 12, and 14 months and doses of lev

108 signs than placebo-treated participants (MDS-UPDRS Part III).

109 9.7-12.6] points per year) and placebo (MDS-UPDRS score, 9.9 [95% CI, 8.4-11.3] points per year; dif

110 Mean changes in postintervention MDS-UPDRS II and III, Non-Motor Symptom Scale (NMSS), Parkin

111 Mean (SD) change in postintervention MDS-UPDRS III scores was not significantly different between

112 umab on slowing motor signs progression (MDS-UPDRS Part III) was greater in the rapidly progressing s

113 automated corneal nerve quantification, MDS-UPDRS III, Hoehn and Yahr scale, Montreal Cognitive Asse

114 significant worsening in UMSARS, RBDsq, MDS-UPDRS III and BDI scores at the 6-year follow-up compare

115 nified Parkinson's disease rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-

116 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) III motor examination score, Purdue Pegboard Test

117 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor score (i.e., part III) for the more affecte

118 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically define

119 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part 3 (motor) score at week 12, analysed on a mo

120 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part I score and other validated NMS scales at ba

121 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III (range, 0 to 132, with higher scores ind

122 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III OFF scores by an average of 23 points in

123 Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III score measured while not taking medicati

124 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III score, off dopaminergic medication at 96

125 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III subscore and total score.

126 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III) than placebo-treated individuals.

127 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part III, of 208 individuals who had previously c

128 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts II and III combined score (a higher score i

129 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts II and III.

130 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) parts II and III.

131 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) sum of Parts I + II + III) was not met, prasinezu

132 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) total score (range, 0 to 236, with higher scores

133 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS), together with several nonmotor tests, at baselin

134 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS).

135 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS).

136 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS-III) at the off-medicine state, Hamilton Anxiety R

137 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS-III), and electrophysiological evaluation of corti

138 Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS; parts I-III) total score (range, 0-236; higher sc

139 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS; range, 0 to 236, with higher scores indicating gr

140 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS; range, 0 to 260, with higher scores indicating mo

141 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS], Part II OFF/ON).

142 nified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, MDS-UPDRS III), fitness, health and well-being measured.

143 gra independently predicted motor score (MDS-UPDRS-III).

144 Mean (SD) MDS-UPDRS III scores were significantly lower following TNR

145 data during the performance of specific MDS-UPDRS/BFM upper- and lower-limb motor tasks, and derived

146 or patients in the off-medication state, MDS-UPDRS III scores improved by 52.6% between baseline and

147 n's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale (MDS-UPDRS III) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

148 0 showed a moderate correlation with the MDS-UPDRS finger-tapping sub-score (Pearson's r = - 0.40, p

149 , off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1.0 points (95% CI -2.6 to 0.7) in

150 ily living activities (measured with the MDS-UPDRS I-II), quality of life (measured with the 39-item

151 g motor change in early disease than the MDS-UPDRS III alone.

152 ent group who had a response, 19 met the MDS-UPDRS III criterion only, 8 met the UDysRS criterion onl

153 l motor score was more accurate than the MDS-UPDRS III in predicting clinical outcomes, requiring 64%

154 Compared with the MDS-UPDRS III, the composite clinical motor score demonstrat

155 sensitivity in detecting change than the MDS-UPDRS III.

156 , motor complications (measured with the MDS-UPDRS IV), daily living activities (measured with the MD

157 d a mean improvement at 12 months on the MDS-UPDRS of 2.7 points, compared with mean decline of 2.2 p

158 At 12 months, scores on the MDS-UPDRS part III had changed by -0.04 points (indicating i

159 The change to week 52 in the MDS-UPDRS score was 10.8 points in the control group, 10.5 p

160 red by standardised scales including the MDS-UPDRS, which are subject to high inter and intra-rater v

161 efficacy criterion was the change of the MDS-UPDRS-I between randomization and week 4.

162 At week 4, mean change of the MDS-UPDRS-I was 2.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53 to 3

163 The scores of the MDS-UPDRS-III (off-medicine), HAM-A, HAM-D, and PDQ-39 signi

164 motor symptom scores assessed using the MDS-UPDRS-III at two time points (baseline and 48 months) we

165 which were not reflected clearly by the MDS-UPDRS-III finger tapping sub-scores.

166 d between groups and correlated with the MDS-UPDRS-III finger tapping sub-scores.

167 3 in the scores on various parts of the MDS-UPDRS.

168 ogression over time than the widely used MDS-UPDRS.

169 At 96 weeks, MDS-UPDRS III OFF-medication scores had increased (worsened)

170 , and association of risk estimates with MDS-UPDRS III scores assessed.

171 inib, 150 mg and 300 mg, exhibited worse MDS-UPDRS-3 ON scores compared with placebo, achieving signi

172 in post-codon 200 PSEN1 mutations (36%; mean UPDRS-III score 3.03) compared to mutations pre-codon 20

173 ; disease duration, 0.9 year [SD, 0.7]; mean UPDRS part I to III score, 23.1 [SD, 8.6]); 95% of patie

174 A significant improvement in mean UPDRS part III motor scores off medication was recorded

175 Clinical Dementia Rating global score (mean UPDRS-III scores 20.71 versus 5.96; P < 0.001).

176 versus 12.8%; P < 0.001) and severity (mean UPDRS-III scores 2.0 versus 0.4; P < 0.001) compared to

177 isk subjects had significantly higher median UPDRS part III scores (3, IQR 1-5.5) than lower risk sub

178 On-medication median UPDRS motor scores improved 8 points (IQR, 0.5-11.0) fro

179 in double-blind assessment of off-medication UPDRS motor scores.

180 BS significantly improved the off-medication UPDRS-III scores, compared with baseline.

181 le (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, UPDRS III scores off and on medication or levodopa equiv

182 Change across time in motor UPDRS score, change across time in total UPDRS score, an

183 Significant improvements in motor UPDRS scores (p=0.0015), predominantly on the side of th

184 teral to pallidotomy, the median 'off' motor UPDRS score improved by 27% (P = 0.001) and a significan

185 The weight-gain group's mean (SE) motor UPDRS score decreased by -0.51 (0.24) (P = .03) points p

186 that the weight-loss group's mean (SE) motor UPDRS score increased by 1.48 (0.28) (P < .001) more poi

187 an the weight-stable group's mean (SE) motor UPDRS score.

188 onsisted of double-blinded video-taped motor UPDRS scores that included both limb and axial features.

189 nt subjective response, except for the motor UPDRS at the first follow-up.

190 ose who showed no improvement in their motor UPDRS at the first follow-up rated their improvement as

191 tride-velocity and directly related to motor UPDRS scores.

192 After pallidotomy, the median total motor UPDRS score 'off' medication decreased by 34.7% (P = 0.0

193 te or better, while 29% of those whose motor UPDRS improved by over 50% said they had no or slight im

194 Tap amplitude was also correlated with motor UPDRS (p < 0.005) and bradykinesia motor (p < 0.05) and

195 Other outcomes (UPDRS Motor, UPDRS Activities of Daily Living, and time to need levod

196 ents showed a trend for improvement in motor-UPDRS scores and quality of life, this did not reach sig

197 anxiety), and inferior STN/substantia nigra (UPDRS tremor, working memory).

198 reduction of 18F-dopa uptake or worsening of UPDRS motor score, indicating continued survival and fun

199 The overall effect of GPi DBS on UPDRS III was not significantly different from STN DBS (

200 Other outcomes (UPDRS Motor, UPDRS Activities of Daily Living, and time

201 between DMV alphasynuclein and the patients' UPDRS scores (p<0.05) suggesting incremental DMV degener

202 aDBS reduced average power, while preserving UPDRS III scores in the clinic (P = 0.28, Wilcoxon signe

203 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (activities of daily living and motor subsections

204 nd Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) - as well as subjective olfaction assessment, and

205 the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) 12 hours off anti-PD medications.

206 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and a 61% improvement in the activities of daily

207 nt Disorder Society Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) and cognition by the Montreal cognitive assessmen

208 he unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) and the PDQ-39, a measure of quality of life.

209 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) before and after surgery.

210 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) between baseline and 42 weeks.

211 The outcome of unified PD rating scale (UPDRS) III was expressed as the standardised mean differ

212 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) in the on condition.

213 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor ratings off medication.

214 nd Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor ratings were assessed using repeated measur

215 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score (off medication/off stimulation versu

216 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor score from off to on state after use of an

217 on unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor score of 25 or more were enrolled into this

218 dy Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores and may be superior to conventional

219 ad unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS) motor scores of 38-70 when off medication (off st

220 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores.

221 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) of 14 points (SD 8; p=0.000121 [36% mean increase

222 or Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) of 52.5 (range 34-66) 'off' medication underwent

223 the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) or Hoehn&Yahr (H&Y) staging is its rater and time

224 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part II score, the UPDRS Part III score, the modi

225 th Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III (off medication) scores, at 6 months aft

226 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts I to III score measured in the antiparkinso

227 a Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) rest tremor score of 3 or greater for any limb, a

228 or Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score and measures of gait and balance.

229 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score at 6 months.

230 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score in PD patients.

231 or Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was determined in each state.

232 of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores and quality of life measures.

233 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores improved by 27% (P < 0.01) and following B

234 ne Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) scores off-medication.

235 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Section II scores off medication, UPDRS III score

236 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) subscale PIGD (Postural Instability and Gait Diso

237 s in Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) subscores, kinematic measures of bradykinesia and

238 by Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) to a greater degree than either region alone (P <

239 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Barry-Albright Dystonia (BAD) scale, Schwab and

240 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), scales of activities of daily living (ADL), neur

241 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), timed motor tests and a standard dyskinesia rati

242 in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS)-II and III scores.

243 he unified Parkinson's disease rating scale (UPDRS).

244 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS).

245 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS, a 176-point scale, with higher numbers indicating

246 2, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III) score of 30 or higher (medication-off state),

247 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS-III), in on- and off-medication/on-stimulation con

248 al Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS; Mentation + Activities of Daily Living + Motor) c

249 he Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS; scores range from 0 to 176, with higher scores si

250 ised Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] [I-III] total score, 43.4 +/- 17.8) and 30 contro

251 ised Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] [I-III] total score, 43.4 17.8) and 30 control su

252 y (Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] part III [motor examination], 23 out of 52 points

253 scores (mean total unified PD rating scale [UPDRS] scores of about 4.5), and in some but not all stu

254 the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS]).

255 nson Disease Rating Scale part three scores (UPDRS-III) from 433 participants of the Dominantly Inher

256 The mean (+/-SD) UPDRS score at baseline was 28.1+/-11.4 points in the ea

257 ST), ataxia (ICARS), and parkinsonian signs (UPDRS) by an investigator blinded to premutation status.

258 of 0.66/0.73/0.58 with the clinical standard UPDRS Part III items 22/23/31, respectively.

259 The mean OFF state UPDRS motor score decreased by 17.3 +/- 17.6% in the act

260 e from baseline to Week 40 in the OFF state (UPDRS-III).

261 owever, in a recent large multicentre study, UPDRS motor and disability scores were not improved desp

262 inson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale [UPDRS part III]).

263 ined R(2) = 20% of the variance in long-term UPDRS-III improvement, which was equivalent to the varia

264 We found that UPDRS motor ratings declined over time after transplanta

265 [mean(SD): 34.8(15.8) vs 23.3(11.6)] and the UPDRS scores [mean(SD): 34.2(17.0) vs 21.8(13.3)].

266 ment-related side effects as measured by the UPDRS IV off medication score (78.4% awake vs 59.7% asle

267 progression of symptoms, as measured by the UPDRS score, between weeks 4 and 40 and the noninferiori

268 parkinsonian symptoms as determined from the UPDRS.

269 Improvement was noted in the UPDRS III motor score 6 months after first lead implanta

270 s between groups in the annual change in the UPDRS or PDQ-39 either.

271 a small but significant deterioration in the UPDRS part II (activities of daily living) score (mean b

272 More rapid change (ie, worsening) in the UPDRS Part II score (hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.08-1.

273 ose of 2 mg per day, since the change in the UPDRS score between baseline and week 72 was not signifi

274 (+/-SE) increase (rate of worsening) in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36 (0.09+/-0.02 points

275 rity to placebo in the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 12 and 36, superiority to dela

276 ps with respect to the rate of change in the UPDRS score between weeks 48 and 72 (0.085+/-0.02 points

277 f change for the following measurements: the UPDRS Part II score; the UPDRS Part III score; the Schwa

278 ] for 1 scale unit change per 6 months), the UPDRS Part III score (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06-1

279 es of daily living subscore (part II) of the UPDRS (p=0.080).

280 an difference between the total score on the UPDRS at baseline and at 42 weeks was 7.8 units in the p

281 ers performed better than noncarriers on the UPDRS-III (P = .02) and on tests of attention (P = .03),

282 AND RELEVANCE In early PD, the UPDRS Part II score and Part III score and the Schwab an

283 ease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part II score, the UPDRS Part III score, the modified Rankin Scale score, l

284 g measurements: the UPDRS Part II score; the UPDRS Part III score; the Schwab and England Independenc

285 Y stages, and motor signs correlating to the UPDRS-III motor score in a training cohort of 50 PD pati

286 rior to sham surgery when assessed using the UPDRS motor score at 12 months.

287 and gait scores were also assessed using the UPDRS.

288 The secondary outcome measures were the UPDRS III subscores of tremor, bradykinesia and rigidity

289 fect of BMI on the change in motor and total UPDRS scores after controlling for covariates.

290 ly associated with change in motor and total UPDRS scores in the NET-PD LS-1.

291 pants were male, and the mean baseline total UPDRS score was 22.7.

292 The elevated total UPDRS and ICARS scores mainly resulted from markedly hig

293 mary outcome measure was the change in total UPDRS score (Parts I-III) from baseline to final visit.

294 Adjusted least-squares mean changes in total UPDRS score in the antiparkinson medication ON state ove

295 tor UPDRS score, change across time in total UPDRS score, and time to death.

296 Adjusted mean changes (worsening) in total UPDRS scores from baseline to final visit were 6.9 point

297 nual progression rate of 4.5 points in total UPDRS.

298 ave shown sustained improvement in the total UPDRS (p < 0.0001), "off" motor (p < 0.0001) and complic

299 ficant reduction (32% decrease) in the total UPDRS score compared to those randomized to medical ther

300 lthy/22 PD patients with medically validated UPDRS Part III single-item scores), the proposed approac

301 nship of log-transformed risk estimates with UPDRS part III scores (increase in MDS-UPDRS per doublin