Postural instability (PI) and falls are major sources of disability in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Our objectives were to evaluate the correlation between the pull-test (PT) scores and falls. Patients underwent a standardized data collection including demographic, clinical data, and the UPDRS scores for falls and the PT. Cases with scores >1 for falls were considered frequent fallers. 264 patients were included with mean age 67.6±10 years, mean age of onset 59.1±10.7 years. Comparison between PT scores versus the proportion of frequent fallers and the mean score of the UPDRS for falls showed that for each increase in the PT score, both parameters were significantly worse, with positive linear relationship. For any abnormal PT score, sensibility and negative predictive value were excellent; specificity and positive predictive value improved with worse PT scores. In conclusion, the PT provides important and reliable information regarding PI and the risk of falls in PD.

Postural instability (PI) and falls are major sources of disability in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Our objectives were to evaluate the correlation between the pull-test (PT) scores and falls. Patients underwent a standardized data collection including demographic, clinical data, and the UPDRS scores for falls and the PT. Cases with scores >1 for falls were considered frequent fallers. 264 patients were included with mean age 67.6±10 years, mean age of onset 59.1±10.7 years. Comparison between PT scores versus the proportion of frequent fallers and the mean score of the UPDRS for falls showed that for each increase in the PT score, both parameters were significantly worse, with positive linear relationship. For any abnormal PT score, sensibility and negative predictive value were excellent; specificity and positive predictive value improved with worse PT scores. In conclusion, the PT provides important and reliable information regarding PI and the risk of falls in PD.

Abstract Background: Noninvasive stimulation has been widely used in the past 30 years to study and treat a large number of neurological diseases, including movement disorders. Objective: In this critical review, we illustrate the rationale for use of these techniques in movement disorders and summarize the best medical evidence based on the main clinical trials performed to date. Methods: A nationally representative group of experts performed a comprehensive review of the literature in order to analyze the key clinical decision-making factors driving transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in movement disorders. Classes of evidence and recommendations were described for each disease. Results: Despite unavoidable heterogeneities and low effect size, TMS is likely to be effective for treating motor symptoms and depression in Parkinson’s disease (PD). The efficacy in other movement disorders is unclear. TMS is possibly effective for focal hand dystonia, essential tremor and cerebellar ataxia. Additionally, it is likely to be ineffective in reducing tics in Tourette syndrome. Lastly, tDCS is likely to be effective in improving gait in PD. Conclusions: There is encouraging evidence for the use of noninvasive stimulation on a subset of symptoms in selected movement disorders, although the means to optimize protocols for improving positive outcomes in routine clinical practice remain undetermined. Similarly, the best stimulation paradigms and responder profile need to be investigated in large clinical trials with established therapeutic and assessment paradigms that could also allow genuine long-term benefits to be determined.

Abstract Background: Noninvasive stimulation has been widely used in the past 30 years to study and treat a large number of neurological diseases, including movement disorders. Objective: In this critical review, we illustrate the rationale for use of these techniques in movement disorders and summarize the best medical evidence based on the main clinical trials performed to date. Methods: A nationally representative group of experts performed a comprehensive review of the literature in order to analyze the key clinical decision-making factors driving transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in movement disorders. Classes of evidence and recommendations were described for each disease. Results: Despite unavoidable heterogeneities and low effect size, TMS is likely to be effective for treating motor symptoms and depression in Parkinson’s disease (PD). The efficacy in other movement disorders is unclear. TMS is possibly effective for focal hand dystonia, essential tremor and cerebellar ataxia. Additionally, it is likely to be ineffective in reducing tics in Tourette syndrome. Lastly, tDCS is likely to be effective in improving gait in PD. Conclusions: There is encouraging evidence for the use of noninvasive stimulation on a subset of symptoms in selected movement disorders, although the means to optimize protocols for improving positive outcomes in routine clinical practice remain undetermined. Similarly, the best stimulation paradigms and responder profile need to be investigated in large clinical trials with established therapeutic and assessment paradigms that could also allow genuine long-term benefits to be determined.