Uhhhhhhhhh.... (thinking)... OK..... if you say so, Jim (sez she who panics if
she has  to add more than 2 + 2) <blush>

How's about we settle on the number of PWP's in "Oceana" <Oceana???> as being
significantly higher than one would think if one looked at all the "official"
figures available today?

Barb Mallut (mind still boggled by the numbers)
[log in to unmask]

----------
From:   Parkinson's Information Exchange on behalf of Jim Slattery
Sent:   Friday, March 27, 1998 12:43 AM
To:     Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
Subject:        Re: Have you tried this?

>I can't begin to count the number of times I've seen the number of =
Parkies in
>the US alone estimated as "between 500,000 and 1,500,000."   That's NOT =
what
>I'd call an accurate estimate!!
>
>Anybody care to take a guess at how many PWP's there REALLY are in the =
USA and
>Canada???   I bet it's numbered in the several millions, when you count =
those


Hi Barbara,

We are just getting down to compiling the final statistics in our =
research.  We interviewed 100 from a list of 120 in our area.  This was =
generaly accepted to be about half of the total of people with PD in the =
area (Central West of NSW, Australia).  The total population of the area =
was accepted to be 170,000.  So the prevalence of PD was thought to be =
about 240 in 170,000, or about 140 per 10(5)  -  that is, 140 in =
100,000.

BUT, we carried out a mailing program to GP's in the area, AND of the =
70% who replied, 370 PD patients were reported.  So it may well be that =
the total number of people with *diagnosed* PD, *confimed* by a =
neurologist, could be as high as (370 / 70 x 100) or 528!!  Rather a =
difference to our +/240, hey?

THEN we did an analysis of the 1996 Australian Census, which showed a =
total population for the area in question (as defined by Local =
Government Area boundaries) of 220,000, not 170,000 as previously =
thought!

So that the prevalence (in a basically rural area with a number of =
cities with 30,000+/ pop.) could be as high as (528 /2.2) or 240 per =
10(5).  Translated to the US pop. of about 270m, this could mean =
(270,000,000 / 100,000 x 240) or about 1.4m, which approaches the 1.5m =
hypothesised.

Research figures I have trawled from Medline show, per 10(5)

Dunedin NZ    -    110
Wellington NZ    -    100
Aberdeen, Scotland    -    103
Germany    -    1000 (of 65+ year-olds)
China    -    15 (?)
Sweden    -    115
Taiwan    -    935 (of 50+ ear-olds.

You can see by the German and Taiwanese figures that when one consides =
the age factor, figures can increase abruptly.  Then there are two terms =
to consider, which to the lay person usually mean the same thing, =
'prevalence' and 'incidence'.  Prevalence is usually the raw figure, eg, =
150 with PD in a total sample of 100,000 would give a raw prevalence of =
150/10(5).  Incidence is measured in 'person years', and usually comes =
out around 1-1.5/10(5).

Clear? <grin>  Thus endeth the lesson.

Figures quoted by the World Health Organisation are wild, to say the =
least, as they bracket Canada, the US, Mexico, Central America and all =
of South America as "The Ameicas", and Australia, New Zealand, and the =
islands of the western Pacific as "Oceania"! =20

To quote from Zhang ZX, Roman GC, in Neuroepidemiology =
1993;12(4):195-208 ;
"Comparison of Parkinson's disease (PD) prevalence and incidence in =
various parts of the world is difficult because methods of case =
ascertainment, diagnostic criteria, classification, medical facilities, =
and age distribution of the populations vary broadly in different =
studies..."

Ain't it the truth!

Jim [59/13 Sinemet, Eldepryl]

----------------------------------------------
Jim Slattery - [log in to unmask]
CW PD Web - [log in to unmask]
http://www.bec.net.au/~cwpdg/
----------------------------------------------