Representation of Parkinson's disease and atypical Parkinson's syndromes in the Czech Republic-A nationwide retrospective study
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2021 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Plos one |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246342 |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246342 |
| Keywords | Parkinson's disease; atypical Parkinson's syndromes |
| Description | Background Parkinson's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease which causes health problem that affects more patients in the past few years. To be able to offer appropriate care, epidemiological analyses are crucial at the national level and its comparison with the international situation. Aim The demographic description of reported patients with parkinsonism (including Parkinson's disease and atypical parkinsonian syndromes) according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) from the national health registries. Methods Retrospective analysis of data available from the National Health Information System-NHIS and the National Registry of Reimbursed Health Services (NRRHS). Analyzed epidemiological data are intending to determine the regional and specific prevalence of Parkinsonism in the Czech Republic. The International Classification of Diseases diagnoses (ICD-10) of G20 (Parkinson's disease-PD) and G23.1, G23.2, G23.3 (other degenerative disorders of basal ganglia), and G31.8 (another degenerative disease of basal ganglia) from the period of 2012 to 2018 were included into the analysis. Results We identified 78 453 unique patients from national registries in the period 2012 to 2018. Diagnoses of G20, G23.1, G23.2, and G31.8 were registered as the principal diagnoses in 76.6% of all individual patients. Conclusion We have found a growing number of patients coded with ICD-10 of dg. G20, G23.1, G23.2, G23.3, or G31.8 (N = 27 891 in 2012, and N = 30 612 in 2018). We have proven regional differences in the prevalence of Parkinson ' s diagnoses. Therefore we assume most likely also differences in the care of patients with PD based on the availability of specialty care centers. |