 |
 |
> Based on you response I may guess that the studies do not include very old individuals over 100 years. In Australia in calendar 2001, there were 784 males >= 100 yrs. in a total male population of 9,270,466 or 1:11,825. The figures for females were 1,719 >= 100 yrs, out of 9,498,783 or 1:5,526. I do not have to hand our study figures for prevalence, but certainly there were representatives in that age group. > Can you mention something about the gender distribution? (In my area, gender is what we are, sex is what we do!) Men have traditionally been talked about more but I guess now that women get it as often. What is the relationship of menopause with PD in your mind? Using the Rotterdam Study (Prevalence of Parkinson's disease in the elderly: the Rotterdam Study. de Rijk MC, Breteler MM, Graveland GA, Ott A, Grobbee DE, van der Meché FG, Hofman A. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Rotterdam, The Netherlands.) prevalence in males aged 85-94 was 3%, and in women 4.8%. Prevalence for women aged 95-99 was 5%. The study was assessed in a generally elderly population of 6,969 persons, >= 55 years. Our study showed no statistical significance for gender difference. Re menopause: As PD can be considered a disturbance of the catecholamine group, which includes adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine) as well as dopamine, and that menopause involves a dramatic involvement of neurotransmitters, it is entirely possible that menopause affects PD or vice versa, but I have seen no definitive data either way. > I was also wondering how epi is 'coping' with the changing diagnoses... PD is really a group of diseases and new ones are emerging. There is more than one genetically determined condition typical for Finland alone. After putting out our preliminary data for peer revue, we got a lot of static about the variance between idiopathic PD and other variants. We decided to change the reference to "parkinsonism" to cover such variants as Shy-Drager Syndrome, Olivo-Ponto-Cerebella Atrophy, Juvenile Onset Dopamine Responsive Dyskinesia (for when you can't diagnose PD in those under 20, because they "don't get PD" but it shows all the symptoms) et al. I see in the literature now a predominance of studies combining various diagnostic variants into a smaller number of groups, whereas up to about 10 years ago, there was a fad to define more and more differences. The trend now seems to be to define dopamine-responsive and non-dopamine-reponsive syndromes. I favour the later approach. > I suppose the use of the entire population has to do with comparisons with other disease distributions, for one. When you talk about statistical relevance, you mean at the general discussion level, don't you? Not at the level of testing small samples and using the exact test? Yes, as a general approach. My studies convince me that the wide divergence in age variations over national populations renders studies that ignore the nexus between population age differences and PD data are bound to mislead. For example the number ofchildren born in Germany in the early years of WWII increased dramatically due to Hitler's policy to "breed-up" Aryan babies through the Hitler Youth, whereas the equivalent age group in France was depleted due to the depredations of war. There is a tendency among some researchers to "a priori" thinking, developing a large body of "information" froma small input of data. > I missed PWP--what did you mean by it? Among carer groups, PWP stands for People With Parkinson's, instead of "Parkies" or "Parkinson's sufferers", or "patients", to stress that those concerned are People first snd foremost, who happen to have PD. Dr James Slattery, PhD Soc Sc ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn