Arguing against the proposed definition changes of PD

Bradley F. Boeve, Dennis W. Dickson, John E. Duda, Tanis J. Ferman, Douglas R. Galasko, James E. Galvin, Jennifer G. Goldman, John H. Growdon, Howard I. Hurtig, Daniel I. Kaufer, Kejal Kantarci, James B. Leverenz, Carol F. Lippa, Oscar L. Lopez, Ian G. McKeith, Andrew B. Singleton, Angela Taylor, Debby Tsuang, Daniel Weintraub, Cyrus P. Zabetian

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

34 Scopus citations


As members of the Lewy Body Dementia Association Scientific Advisory Council, we aim to address some of the issues raised in the article titled “Time to Redefine PD? Introductory Statement of the MDS Task Force on the Definition of Parkinson's Disease.” In particular, we suggest that the 1-year rule distinguishing Parkinson's disease dementia from dementia with Lewy bodies is worth maintaining because it serves an important purpose in clinical practice and clinical and basic science research and when helping the lay community understand the complexity of these different clinical phenotypes. Furthermore, we believe that adding an additional diagnostic label, “PD (dementia with Lewy bodies subtype),” will confuse rather than clarify the distinction between dementia with Lewy bodies and PD or PD dementia, and will not improve management or expedite therapeutic development. We present arguments supporting our contentions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1619-1622
Number of pages4
JournalMovement Disorders
Issue number11
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016


  • Dementia with Lewy bodies
  • Parkinson's disease
  • dementia
  • parkinsonism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology


Dive into the research topics of 'Arguing against the proposed definition changes of PD'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this