This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Background: Genetic studies of PD frequently rely on family history interviews (FHI), yet the accuracy of data obtained in this way is unclear.
Objective: To assess the interinformant reliability and validity of family history information on PD in first-degree relatives of PD cases and controls.
Methods: A structured FHI was administered to nondemented PD cases and controls and to a second informant (self-report, sibling or child of the subject) for each relative. Interinformant agreement was assessed on four algorithm-derived diagnostic categories of PD: definite, definite or probable, definite, probable or possible (“conservative diagnosis”); or definite, probable, possible, or uncertain (“liberal diagnosis”). The sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic category were assessed, using as the gold standard diagnoses based on either in-person examination or medical record review.
Results: Five hundred thirty-six families containing 2,225 first-degree relatives were included in the interinformant reliability study. Agreement between informants was excellent for definite or probable PD for all three pairwise comparisons: proband vs self-report (κ = 0.92), proband vs sibling of subject (κ = 0.80), and proband vs child of subject (κ = 0.87). Agreement was also good to excellent for the conservative diagnosis (κ = 0.66, 0.49, and 0.79). In the validity analysis (141 individuals in 96 families), the conservative diagnosis provided the best combination of sensitivity (95.5%) and specificity (96.2%) for the proband’s family history report. No difference was apparent across categories defined by case or control status, relationship to the proband, or gender or age at onset of the proband. However, specificity was lower for deceased relatives than for living relatives.
Conclusion: The FHI can be used to obtain reliable and valid family history information on PD in first-degree relatives when a conservative diagnostic algorithm is applied.
- Received December 9, 2002.
- Accepted March 27, 2003.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
