|
| |
 |
|
| REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2020 | Volume
: 3
| Issue : 1 | Page : 3-22 |
|
Parkinson’s disease rating scales: a literature review
Jamir Pitton Rissardo, Ana L Fornari Caprara
Department of Neurology, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil; Department of Medicine, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil
| Date of Submission | 25-Nov-2019 |
| Date of Decision | 10-Jan-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 13-Jan-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 01-Apr-2020 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jamir Pitton Rissardo
Rua Roraima, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul.
Brazil
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | 5 |
DOI: 10.4103/AOMD.AOMD_33_19
A scale is critical for an objective and standardized process in which the purpose involves measuring differences between various individuals and determining priorities such as primary treatment goals. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze the most common Parkinson’s disease (PD) scales already used for research and clinical practice. We searched three databases in an attempt to locate existing scales about PD published until 2017 in electronic form, only the articles in English, Spanish, and Portuguese were reviewed. In sum, 114 scales were evaluated and divided into 6 types representing a general evaluation, such as staging, health-related quality of life, evaluation of the impact on activities of daily living, loss of functionality aimed at evaluation of the signs and symptoms of the disease, evaluation of functioning and disability loss, and other specific evaluations. Other specific evaluations include the following: fear of falling, depression, psychosis, sleep, apathy and anhedonia, anxiety, dysautonomia, dyskinesia, fatigue, motor fluctuations, psychosocial problems, secondary levodopa effects, Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s disease (SCOPA) studies, and cognitive impairment screening. When required, more specific characteristics of each scale were included: time to apply, the number of items, advantage, and disadvantage. In the literature, there are a large number of scales, but the majority of them were created for other diseases and only later studied for PD. Also, more than half have only a small number of studies with psychometric evaluation and others can be used for only a specific portion of the general population due to their specific feature assessment or language availability. Keywords: Parkinson’s disease, rating, review, scale
How to cite this article:
Pitton Rissardo J, Fornari Caprara AL. Parkinson’s disease rating scales: a literature review. Ann Mov Disord 2020;3:3-22 |
How to cite this URL:
Pitton Rissardo J, Fornari Caprara AL. Parkinson’s disease rating scales: a literature review. Ann Mov Disord [serial online] 2020 [cited 2023 May 31];3:3-22. Available from: https://www.aomd.in/text.asp?2020/3/1/3/281747 |
| Key messages: | |  |
- (1) In the literature, there are a large number of scales, but the majority of them were created for other diseases with later study in Parkinson’s disease.
- (2) Some of the scales need a lot of training before the application.
- (3) None of the scales is perfect, and it would probably be better to use combined scales even though we know that they overlap in some aspects.
| Introduction | | |
A scale is critical for an objective and standardized process in which the purpose involves measuring differences between various individuals and determining priorities such as primary treatment goals.[1] In this context, valid and reliable scales are needed to monitor, evaluate, and detect the impact of Parkinson’s disease (PD) on a variety of domains. In addition, the increasing awareness for nonmotor issues of PD has prompted a search for instruments capable of covering a range of symptoms from neuropsychiatric and autonomic dysfunction to sleep disturbance and other nonmotor aspects.[2] It is worth mentioning that the nonmotor assessment is even more difficult to give a clear clinical description than the motor issues as it involves a subjective evaluation and the patient’s cooperation, which sometimes are difficult to obtain.
PD is a progressive neurological disorder that gradually results in accumulating disabilities. New finds about pathophysiology and levodopa-induced motor complications have stimulated the development of new drugs and surgical techniques that have changed, in many cases, clinical outcomes throughout the last decades. In this way, the present therapeutic interventions demand valid instruments for research and clinical uses, and these, on their turn, should be effective enough to assess all the clinical systems of the patient with PD.[3] Thus, it was probably the discovery of new techniques in the management of PD that boosted the designing of new scales focusing on specific points of PD based on the needing evaluation. However, at the same time that the focus on certain characteristics of PD increased, fewer patients were evaluated, leading many scales to only extremely specific studies.
For the assessment of PD, there are many different scales that propose to evaluate diverse fields of PD. This evaluation includes the analysis of disease staging, quality of life, activities of daily living, impairment, disability, and other specific aspects. However, there is still little evidence on the psychometric characteristics of most of these instruments used for this disease, and some are beneficial only for a specific group of individuals.[4] This is supported, for example, by the fact that many scales are not appropriated for both research and clinical practice. Also, a significant amount of scales have no validity in most of the countries where they are applied, for they were not adequately adapted to the reality of a foreign population, but instead, only translated from their original language.[5] Furthermore, it is known that many instruments destined to evaluate specific aspects of the disease, such as cognitive impairment, are not able to do this in a non-biased manner. The aim of this study was to describe and analyze the most common PD scales used for research and clinical practice.
| Methods | | |
Search strategy
We searched three databases, Google Scholar, Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and MEDLINE, in an attempt to locate existing scales about PD published until 2017 in electronic form.. Search terms were “scale, evaluation instruments, outcome measures, rating scales, validation studies, questionnaire, clinimetric, reliability, and validity.” These terms were combined with “Parkinson and Parkinson’s disease.”
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Original articles, case reports, case series, letters to the editor, task forces, and poster presentations published until 2017 were included in this review in English, Spanish, and Portuguese. The two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all papers found from the initial search. Disagreements between the authors were resolved through discussion.
Due to a large number of published scales in the literature, we prioritized the description of only some scales in this review. This selection was based on the number of citations, reviews’ evaluation that compared different scales, and task forces by the “The Movement Disorder Society” assessing the recommendations of scales for PD.
We excluded scales not related to PD, scales that were applied only in a small group of individuals, and scales without at least one article showing the clinimetric. Also, cases that were not accessible by electronic methods, including after a request to the authors of the study by email, were excluded.
Data extraction
When provided, we extracted the author’s name, year of publication, and country of occurrence, and the scales’ characteristics assessed were type/subtype, time to applicate, number of items, advantages, and disadvantages. The majority of the reports did not provide sufficient information about the statistical methods to assess the predictive values of the scales. The data were extracted by two independent authors, double-checked to ensure matching, and organized.
Definition
The scales are divided into two groups by their methods: qualitative and quantitative methods.[6] This study focused only on qualitative methods. These methods involve subjective evaluations to inventory the symptoms, signs, and functional loss.
In [Table 1], PD scales are organized and are divided into nine columns:
- (a)Type (I, II, III, …)/subtype (1, 2, 3, …) of the scale, that is: staging (I); health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (II); evaluation of the impact on activities of daily living (III); loss of functionality aimed at evaluation of the signs and symptoms of the disease (IV); evaluation of functioning and disability loss (V); and other specific evaluations. Specific evaluations include the following: fear of falling (1); depression (2); psychosis (3); sleep (4); apathy and anhedonia (5); anxiety (6); dysautonomia (7); dyskinesia (8); fatigue (9); motor fluctuations (10); psychosocial problems (11); secondary levodopa effects (12); Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s disease (SCOPA) studies (13); and cognitive impairment screening (14).
These types and subtypes were proposed by the authors of this review for better comprehension and understanding of the differences of the scales. They represent the main characteristic of the scales and their use. Even though some scales were not aimed for that subtype, the majority of the studies, including the task forces published by the “The Movement Disorder Society,” evaluated the scale in that manner. We tried to organize the scales proposed by other articles, but most of them evaluated only a small number of scales that were chosen selectively. Also, in an attempt to use these published organizations, many scales described in this article are likely to have more than one classification.
- (b) Scale: Sometimes the name was not provided by the authors of the article. Therefore, we named according to the reviews cited or as was commonly named in the literature.
- (c) Reference number.
- (d) Acronym: The acronyms provided are those provided by the clinimetric articles of the scale.
- (e) The number of items (items or cognitive domains): Some scales when used for PD did not assess all the items that the scale has. Thus, we included only the number of items that were evaluated in PD.
- (f) The time required (minutes): The time was obtained from the review and original articles.
- (g) The advantage of the scale was compared with other scales.
- (h) The disadvantage of the scale was compared with other scales.
- (i) Considerations/recommendations already published by some group in task forces or other reviews.
| Discussion | | |
The first type of scale is about the staging of PD; the only scale until the present moment is Hoehn and Yahr Scale that is simple and quick but has low sensitivity in early stages. These scales are recommended in demographic presentations of patients and are useful for defining inclusion and exclusion criteria. In this way, they are one of the fast and easy methods for separating the patients in subgroups, when a general analysis is required.[6],[7]
The second type is HRQoL, which has nine commonly used scales. They can be divided into specific and generic scales. The specific scales have problems with their restriction in some characteristics of PD as they superficially or not measure important areas such as self-image, sexual function, or the role functionality of the individual. To be more specific, we cannot take a clear picture of the patient’s overall health. However, the recommendations are using this type: if an initial evaluation, PDQ-39 and PDQL[8],[9],[10] are useful, but if the areas of potential problems need to be identified, PIMS should be used.[11] The SIP has the broadest measure among HRQoL. Also, it has important questions about writing and sexual dysfunction, but this will be time-consuming (30min). It is worth mentioning that PLQ can be used only in the German population.[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22]
The third type is an evaluation of the impact on the activity of daily living, which has four scales. They are easy and quick, but the clinimetric properties to PD have never been established. The most important use of these scales is when an evaluation of the patient and his/her caregiver is needed. In this way, when it is obtained by the clinical history that the patient needs his/her caregiver for all basic tasks or is noted a burnout of the caregiver, this scale could be useful.[23],[24]
The fourth type is about the loss of functionality aimed at the evaluation of the signs and symptoms of the disease, which has four scales. They have good reproducibility, but some drawbacks are that some symptoms could not be analyzed. The major sample of this type is UPDRS that captures multiple aspects of PD but fails in the evaluation of nonmotor symptoms and in the inadequate (ambiguities) instruction for application. Thus, before applying these scales, the researchers need to spend a significant quantity of time in the development of skills for a uniform and stable evaluation.[24],[25],[26],[27]
The fifth type is about functioning and disability, which has three scales. They are short and easy but only have few studies in the literature with this type.[24]
In the sixth type, we resume the scales related to specific analyses. This category was separated into 14 subtypes. The first subtype is about fear of falling, which has four scales. There are a small number of studies analyzing these scales together, but they have marked differences in language and some specific details. The articles suggest that FES-I and mSAFFE should be used for the evaluation of activity avoidance due to the risk of falling.[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]
The second subtype is about depression, which has 12 scales. These scales are not specifically made to PD, but the majority of them are easy and quick. Probably, the best scale to use is the GDS-30 because it is simple, does not have copyright restriction, and is efficient in screening depression of PD. However, some have the most specific use: self-administered analysis (BDI), distinguish depression from dementia (GDS-30), the severity of depression (IDS-SR, IDS-C), treatment efficacy (HAM-D-17), and for more etiological approach (MADRS).[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]
The third subtype is psychosis, which has 11 scales. These are divided into specific and generalized scales. The majority of these scales are classified as recommended or suggested for Parkinson’s psychosis. The most used scale is BPRS, but it has some drawbacks when the characterization of psychotic phenomena is needed.[50],[51]
The fourth subtype is about sleep, which has six scales. These scales are simple and quick. They distinguish in specific uses such as a focus in nocturnal sleep (PDSS), sleep habits (PSQI), alertness at time of administration (SSS), sleep at a specific point (KSS), sleep in the specific eight situations (ESS), and patients at risk of sudden sleep while driving (ISCS).[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61],[62],[63],[64]
The fifth subtype is about apathy and anhedonia, which has six scales. These are divided into specific and generalized scales. The majority of the scales have problems with their validation and they have been used in a few studies. The only recommended scale is AS that also has problems with validation, but it is specifically developed for PD. The scales AES and AI are used to assess the severity, and the AES is used to follow the changes of apathy during treatment.[65],[66],[67]
The sixth subtype is about anxiety, which has six scales. These scales have poorly clinimetric properties. One of the most used scales is ASI that has 20 items and whose application time is undetermined. The BAI is more used to assess panic attacks in PD.[68],[69],[70],[71]
The seventh subtype is about dysautonomia, which has nine scales. These scales were used only in a few studies, so their clinimetric properties are not consolidated. The recommended (but with some limitations) scale to evaluate dysautonomia are COMPASS, because it has high accuracy in the definition of autonomic symptoms in PD but is much complex and large as compared to the other scales of evaluation of dysautonomia.[72],[73],[74],[75],[76]
The eighth subtype is dyskinesia, which has seven scales. All of them can assess dyskinesia and are useful to clinician, brief, and simple to apply. The problems with these scales are that these are used only in a few studies and their clinimetric properties are not consolidated. The recommended scales are AIMS and RDS. The AIMS is best to assess the severity of dyskinesia and the RDS to assess functional disability, but the time spent to apply the AIMS is about twice the RDS.[77],[78],[79],[80],[81],[82],[83],[84]
The ninth subtype is about fatigue, which has 10 scales. These scales are brief and easy, but have problems with clinimetric evaluation because of few studies and not clearly defining the variable that it intends to measure. The recommended scales to screening the fatigue are FSS, FACIT-F, and PFS-16 (made specific to PD); the only one scale recommended to evaluate the severity is FSS.[85],[86],[87],[88],[89],[90],[91],[92],[93],[94]
The 10th subtype is about psychosocial problems. This subtype has only one scale, the Belastungsfragebogen Parkinson Kurzversion (BELA-P-k). This scale has only a few studies and is in German.[95]
The 11th subtype is about levodopa secondary effects. This subtype has only one scale, the Parkinson’s Disease Symptom Inventory (PDSI). It is useful for helping clinicians to measure changes in symptoms and side effects over the treatment time, but it has few studies.[96]
The 12th subtype is about motor fluctuations, which has five scales. All of them have little evidence and need more studies. CAPSIT-PD diary has a registry for patients with PD subjected to functional neurosurgery; it is recommended and was published providing minimum requirements for a common patient evaluation control. The other two classified as recommended scales and easy to apply are HPDD and WOQ-19.[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102]
The 13th subtype is about SCOPA studies. SCOPA is a large research project on Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson’s disease. This study has five scales. SCOPA-AUT is an autonomic scale, which focuses on the clinical applicability of the questionnaire. SCOPA-COG is to evaluate cognition, which is short, reliable, and valid. SCOPA-Motor Scale is to evaluate motor symptoms and is quick compared with UPDRS. SCOPA-PC is to evaluate psychiatric complications; it is relatively short and is more likely to be sensitive to early cognitive changes in the PD population than the MMSE. SCOPA-Sleep assesses nocturnal sleep disorders and daytime somnolence.[60],[103],[104],[105],[106],[107],[108]
The 14th subtype is about cognitive impairment screening, which has 10 scales. These scales are easy and quick. The best scales are PDD-SS, mattis dementia rating scale (MDRS), and MMSE. The MMSE is the widely used screening measure for detecting dementia, but the clinimetric evaluation in PD to detect mild cognitive impairment has not been adequately stabilized. The MOCA has more adequate clinimetric properties, but a higher formal knowledge is required compared to the MMSE.[109],[110],[111],[112],[113],[114],[115],[116],[117],[118],[119],[120],[121],[122]
| Conclusion | | |
In sum, 114 scales are evaluated in [Table 1] and divided into 6 types. In the literature, there are a large number of scales and every year more and more scales are published for the assessment of PD. However, the majority of them have only a small number of studies with psychometric evaluation, and others can be used for only a specific portion of the general population due to their characteristic features such as language availability. Also, some of the newly developed scales are incorporating part of other ratings instead of only citing them; this gives the medical literature a confusing assessment, when evaluating these grading systems, and turns them into long, confusing, and difficult to apply clinically. Therefore, we believe that instead of developing new scales, the studies should focus on the clinimetric evaluation, and assess these scales in different ethnic origins translating the scales and evaluating their quality.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Pocinho M, Figueiredo JP. Methods and Techniques of Scientific Research. Coimbra, Portugal:Escola Superior Tecnologia da Saúde de Coimbra; 2004.  |
| 2. | Chaudhuri KR, Odin P, Antonini A, Martinez-Martin P. Parkinson’s disease: The non-motor issues. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011;17:717-23. |
| 3. | Martínez-Martín P, Rodríguez-Blázquez C, Mario A, Arakaki T, Arillo VC, Chaná P, et al. Parkinson’s disease severity levels and MDS-unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2015;21:50-4. |
| 4. | Rito M. Parkinson's disease: assessment tools. Arq Fisioter 2006;2:27-45. |
| 5. | Martinez‐Martin P, Schrag A, Weintraub D, Rizos A, Rodriguez‐Blazquez C, Chaudhuri KR, et al. Pilot study of the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society‐sponsored Non‐Motor Rating Scale (MDS‐NMS). Mov Disord Clin Pract 2019;6:227-34. |
| 6. | Levy A. Parkinson's Disease: A Practical Guide. Lisboa, Portugal: Técnicas; 2003. |
| 7. | Goetz CG, Poewe W, Rascol O, Sampaio C, Stebbins GT, Counsell C, et al; the Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson’s Disease. Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: Status and recommendations. Mov Disord 2004;19:1020-8. |
| 8. | Damiano AM, Snyder C, Strausser B, Willian MK. A review of health-related quality-of-life concepts and measures for Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 1999;8:235-43. |
| 9. | Peto V, Jenkinson C, Fitzpatrick R. PDQ-39: A review of the development, validation and application of a Parkinson’s disease quality of life questionnaire and its associated measures. J Neurol 1998;245:S10-4. |
| 10. | Hobson P, Holden A, Meara J. Measuring the impact of Parkinson’s disease with the Parkinson’s disease quality of life questionnaire. Age Ageing 1999;28:341-6. |
| 11. | Marinus J, Ramaker C, van Hilten JJ, Stiggelbout AM. Health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review of disease specific instruments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;72:241-8. |
| 12. | Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, Koh DR, Ng SC, Yoon KH, et al. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in English-speaking Asian patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Qual Life Res 2003;12:87-92. |
| 13. | Devlin NJ, Parkin D, Browne J. Patient-reported outcome measures in the NHS: New methods for analysing and reporting EQ-5D data. Health Econ 2010;19:886-905. |
| 14. | Pagani TCS, Junior CRP. Health-related quality of life assessment instruments. Ensaios Ciência 2006;1:32-7. |
| 15. | Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992;305:160-4. |
| 16. | Teixeira-Salmela LF, Magalhães LC, Souza AC, Lima MC, Lima RCM, Goulart F. Nottingham Health Profile adaptation: a simple tool for assessing the quality of life. Cad Saúde Pública 2004;20:905-14. |
| 17. | Hagell P, Whalley D, McKenna SP, Lindvall O. Health status measurement in Parkinson’s disease: Validity of the PDQ‐39 and Nottingham Health Profile. Mov Disord 2003;18:773-83. |
| 18. | Ebrahim S, Barer D, Nouri F. Use of the Nottingham health profile with patients after a stroke. J Epidemiol Community Health 1986;40:166-9. |
| 19. | Fleck MP, Leal OM, Louzada SN, Xavier MK, Chachamovich E, Vieira GM, et alDevelopment of the Portuguese version of the WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-100). Braz J Psychiatry 1999; 21:19-28. |
| 20. | Bittencourt ZZLC, Alves Filho G, Mazzali M, Santos NR. Quality of life in kidney transplant recipients: Importance of a functioning graft. Rev Saúde Pública 2004;38:732-4. |
| 21. | Hirayama MS, Gobbi S, Gobbi LT, Stella F. Quality of life (QoL) in relation to disease severity in Brazilian Parkinson’s patients as measured using the WHOQOL-BREF. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2008;46:147-60. |
| 22. | Longstreth WT Jr, Nelson L, Linde M, Muñoz D. Utility of the sickness impact profile in Parkinson’s disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1992;5:142-8. |
| 23. | McRae C, Diem G, Vo A, O’Brien C, Seeberger L. Reliability of measurements of patient health status: A comparison of physician, patient, and caregiver ratings. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2002;8:187-92. |
| 24. | Ramaker C, Marinus J, Stiggelbout AM, Van Hilten BJ. Systematic evaluation of rating scales for impairment and disability in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2002;17:867-76. |
| 25. | Harder S, Baas H. Concentration‐response relationship of levodopa in patients at different stages of Parkinson’s disease. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998;64:183-91. |
| 26. | Geminiani G, Cesana BM, Tamma F, Contri P, Pacchetti C, Carella F, et al. Interobserver reliability between neurologists in training of Parkinson’s disease rating scales: A multicenter study. Mov Disord 1991;6:330-5. |
| 27. | Disease MDS. The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS): Status and recommendations. Mov Disord 2003;18:738-50. |
| 28. | Jonasson SB, Nilsson MH, Lexell J. Psychometric properties of four fear of falling rating scales in people with Parkinson’s disease. BMC Geriatr 2014;14:66. |
| 29. | Yardley L, Beyer N, Hauer K, Kempen G, Piot-Ziegler C, Todd C. Development and initial validation of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Age Ageing 2005;34:614-9. |
| 30. | Tinetti ME, Richman D, Powell L. Falls efficacy as a measure of fear of falling. J Gerontol 1990;45:P239-43. |
| 31. | Hellström K, Lindmark B, Fugl-Meyer A. The Falls-Efficacy Scale, Swedish version: Does it reflect clinically meaningful changes after stroke? Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:471-81. |
| 32. | Nordell E, Andreasson M, Gall K, Thorngren K-G. Evaluating the Swedish version of the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I). Adv Physiother 2009;11:81-7. |
| 33. | Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol Ser A 1995;50:28-34. |
| 34. | Kressig RW, Wolf SL, Sattin RW, O’Grady M, Greenspan A, Curns A, et al. Associations of demographic, functional, and behavioral characteristics with activity-related fear of falling among older adults transitioning to frailty. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001;49:1456-62. |
| 35. | Li F, Fisher KJ, Harmer P, McAuley E, Wilson NL. Fear of falling in elderly persons: Association with falls, functional ability, and quality of life. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2003;58:P283-90. |
| 36. | Beck AT, Steer RA, Carbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 1988;8:77-100. |
| 37. | Van Dam NT, Earleywine M. Validation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale–Revised (CESD-R): Pragmatic depression assessment in the general population. Psychiatry Res 2011;186:128-32. |
| 38. | Rush AJ, Carmody T, Reimitz PE. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): Clinician (IDS‐C) and Self‐Report (IDS‐SR) ratings of depressive symptoms. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2000;9:45-59. |
| 39. | Rush AJ, Gullion CM, Basco MR, Jarrett RB, Trivedi MH. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): Psychometric properties. Psychol Med 1996;26:477-86. |
| 40. | Smarr KL, Keefer AL. Measures of depression and depressive symptoms: Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:S454-66. |
| 41. | Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979;134:382-9. |
| 42. | Bech P, Rasmussen NA, Olsen LR, Noerholm V, Abildgaard W. The sensitivity and specificity of the major depression inventory, using the present state examination as the index of diagnostic validity. J Affect Disord 2001;66:159-64. |
| 43. | Ownby RL, Harwood DG, Acevedo A, Barker W, Duara R. Factor structure of the Cornell scale for depression in dementia for Anglo and Hispanic patients with dementia. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001;9:217-24. |
| 44. | Zung WW, Richards CB, Short MJ. Self-rating depression scale in an outpatient clinic: Further validation of the SDS. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1965;13:508-15. |
| 45. | Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 1982;17:37-49. |
| 46. | Williams JR, Hirsch ES, Anderson K, Bush AL, Goldstein SR, Grill S, et al. A comparison of nine scales to detect depression in Parkinson disease: Which scale to use? Neurology 2012;78:998-1006. |
| 47. | Schrag A, Barone P, Brown RG, Leentjens AF, McDonald WM, Starkstein S, et al. Depression rating scales in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2007;22:1077-92. |
| 48. | Bech P, Wermuth L. Applicability and validity of the Major Depression Inventory in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nord J Psychiatry 1998;52:305-10. |
| 49. | Manea L, Gilbody S, McMillan D. A diagnostic meta-analysis of the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) algorithm scoring method as a screen for depression. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2015;37:67-75. |
| 50. | Fernandez HH, Aarsland D, Fénelon G, Friedman JH, Marsh L, Tröster AI, et al. Scales to assess psychosis in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2008;23:484-500. |
| 51. | Thorpy MJ, Billiard M. Sleepiness: Causes, Consequences and Treatment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011. |
| 52. | Ellis BW, Johns MW, Lancaster R, Raptopoulos P, Angelopoulos N, Priest RG. The St. Mary’s hospital sleep questionnaire: A study of reliability. Sleep 1981;4:93-7. |
| 53. | Parrott AC, Hindmarch I. Factor analysis of a sleep evaluation questionnaire. Psychol Med 1978;8:325-9. |
| 54. | Chaudhuri KR, Pal S, DiMarco A, Whately-Smith C, Bridgman K, Mathew R, et al. The Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale: A new instrument for assessing sleep and nocturnal disability in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:629-35. |
| 55. | Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res 1989;28:193-213. |
| 56. | Saadat S, Sadeghian F, Fayaz M. Sleepiness and fatigue among night-shift nurses with three-hour nap and day-shift nurses. Int J Health Stud 2016;2:24-30. |
| 57. | Akerstedt T, Gillberg M. Subjective and objective sleepiness in the active individual. Int J Neurosci 1990;52:29-37. |
| 58. | Johns MW. A new method for measuring daytime sleepiness: The Epworth Sleepiness Scale. Sleep 1991;14:540-5. |
| 59. | Douglass AB, Bornstein R, Nino-Murcia G, Keenan S, Miles L, Zarcone VP Jr, et al. The sleep disorders questionnaire. I: Creation and multivariate structure of SDQ. Sleep 1994;17:160-7. |
| 60. | Martinez-Martin P, Visser M, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Marinus J, Chaudhuri KR, van Hilten JJ; SCOPA-Propark Group; ELEP Group. SCOPA-Sleep and PDSS: Two scales for assessment of sleep disorder in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2008;23:1681-8. |
| 61. | Shulman LM, Taback RL, Rabinstein AA, Weiner WJ. Non-recognition of depression and other non-motor symptoms in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2002;8:193-7. |
| 62. | Högl B, Arnulf I, Comella C, Ferreira J, Iranzo A, Tilley B, et al. Scales to assess sleep impairment in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2010;25:2704-16. |
| 63. | Chaudhuri KR, Pal S, DiMarco A, Whately-Smith C, Bridgman K, Mathew R, et al. The Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale: A new instrument for assessing sleep and nocturnal disability in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:629-35. |
| 64. | Marinus J, Visser M, van Hilten JJ, Lammers GJ, Stiggelbout AM. Assessment of sleep and sleepiness in Parkinson disease. Sleep 2003;26:1049-54. |
| 65. | Isella V, Iurlaro S, Piolti R, Ferrarese C, Frattola L, Appollonio I, et al. Physical anhedonia in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:1308-11. |
| 66. | Leentjens AF, Dujardin K, Marsh L, Martinez-Martin P, Richard IH, Starkstein SE, et al. Apathy and anhedonia rating scales in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2008;23:2004-14. |
| 67. | Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S. Reliability and validity of the apathy evaluation scale. Psychiatry Res 1991;38:143-62. |
| 68. | Sockeel P, Dujardin K, Devos D, Denève C, Destée A, Defebvre L. The Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS), a new instrument for detecting and quantifying apathy: Validation in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2006;77:579-84. |
| 69. | Leentjens AF, Dujardin K, Marsh L, Martinez-Martin P, Richard IH, Starkstein SE, et al. Anxiety rating scales in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2008;23:2015-25. |
| 70. | Julian LJ. Measures of anxiety: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety (HADS-A). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:S467-72. |
| 71. | Zung WW. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics 1971;12:371-9. |
| 72. | Pavy‐Le Traon A, Amarenco G, Duerr S, Kaufmann H, Lahrmann H, Shaftman SR, et al. The movement disorders task force review of dysautonomia rating scales in Parkinson’s disease with regard to symptoms of orthostatic hypotension. Mov Disord 2011;26:1985-92. |
| 73. | Hobson P, Islam W, Roberts S, Adhiyman V, Meara J. The risk of bladder and autonomic dysfunction in a community cohort of Parkinson’s disease patients and normal controls. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2003;10:67-71. |
| 74. | Mathias CJ. L-dihydroxyphenylserine (droxidopa) in the treatment of orthostatic hypotension: The European experience. Clin Auton Res 2008;18:25-9. |
| 75. | Senard JM, Raï S, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Brefel C, Rascol O, Rascol A, et al. Prevalence of orthostatic hypotension in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997;63:584-9. |
| 76. | Magerkurth C, Schnitzer R, Braune S. Symptoms of autonomic failure in Parkinson’s disease: Prevalence and impact on daily life. Clin Auton Res 2005;15:76-82. |
| 77. | Colosimo C, Martínez-Martín P, Fabbrini G, Hauser RA, Merello M, Miyasaki J, et al. Task force report on scales to assess dyskinesia in Parkinson’s disease: Critique and recommendations. Mov Disord 2010;25:1131-42. |
| 78. | Goetz CG, Stebbins GT, Shale HM, Lang AE, Chernik DA, Chmura TA, et al. Utility of an objective dyskinesia rating scale for Parkinson’s disease: Inter- and intrarater reliability assessment. Mov Disord 1994;9:390-4. |
| 79. | Goetz CG, Nutt JG, Stebbins GT. The unified dyskinesia rating scale: Presentation and clinimetric profile. Mov Disord 2008;23:2398-403. |
| 80. | Langston JW, Widner H, Goetz CG, Brooks D, Fahn S, Freeman T, et al. Core assessment program for intracerebral transplantations (CAPIT). Mov Disord 1992;7:2-13. |
| 81. | Katzenschlager R, Schrag A, Evans A, Manson A, Carroll CB, Ottaviani D, et al. Quantifying the impact of dyskinesias in PD: The PDYS-26: A patient-based outcome measure. Neurology 2007;69:555-63. |
| 82. | Hagell P, Widner H. Clinical rating of dyskinesias in Parkinson’s disease: Use and reliability of a new rating scale. Mov Disord 1999;14:448-55. |
| 83. | Group PS. Evaluation of dyskinesias in a pilot, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of remacemide in advanced Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 2001;58:1660-8. |
| 84. | Whall AL, Engle V, Edwards A, Bobel L, Haberland C. Development of a screening program for tardive dyskinesia: Feasibility issues. Nurs Res 1983;32:151-6. |
| 85. | Cho HJ, Costa E, Menezes PR, Chalder T, Bhugra D, Wessely S. Cross-cultural validation of the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire in Brazilian primary care. J Psychosom Res 2007;62:301-4. |
| 86. | Friedman JH, Alves G, Hagell P, Marinus J, Marsh L, Martinez-Martin P, et al. Fatigue rating scales critique and recommendations by the movement disorders society task force on rating scales for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2010;25:805-22. |
| 87. | Schwartz JE, Jandorf L, Krupp LB. The measurement of fatigue: A new instrument. J Psychosom Res 1993;37:753-62. |
| 88. | Fisk JD, Doble SE. Construction and validation of a Fatigue Impact Scale for Daily Administration (D-FIS). Qual Life Res 2002;11:263-72. |
| 89. | Chalder T, Berelowitz G, Pawlikowska T, Watts L, Wessely S, Wright D, et al. Development of a fatigue scale. J Psychosom Res 1993;37:147-53. |
| 90. | Kleinman L, Zodet MW, Hakim Z, Aledort J, Barker C, Chan K, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the fatigue severity scale for use in chronic hepatitis C. Qual Life Res 2000;9:499-508. |
| 91. | Martinez-Martin P, Catalan MJ, Benito-Leon J, Moreno AO, Zamarbide I, Cubo E, et al. Impact of fatigue in Parkinson’s disease: The Fatigue Impact Scale for Daily Use (D-FIS). Qual Life Res 2006;15:597-606. |
| 92. | Brown RG, Dittner A, Findley L, Wessely SC. The Parkinson fatigue scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2005;11:49-55. |
| 93. | Yellen SB, Cella DF, Webster K, Blendowski C, Kaplan E. Measuring fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms with the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) measurement system. J Pain Symptom Manage 1997;13:63-74. |
| 94. | Hewlett S, Dures E, Almeida C. Measures of fatigue: Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Multi-Dimensional Questionnaire (BRAF MDQ), Bristol Rheumatoid Arthritis Fatigue Numerical Rating Scales (BRAF NRS) for severity, effect, and coping, Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), Checklist Individual Strength (CIS20R and CIS8R), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Functional Assessment Chronic Illness Therapy (fatigue) (FACIT-F), Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF), Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) Multi-Dimensional Fatigue Scale, Profile of Fatigue (ProF), Short Form 36 Vitality Subscale (SF-36 VT), and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63:S263-86. |
| 95. | Spliethoff-Kamminga NG, Zwinderman AH, Springer MP, Roos RA. Psychosocial problems in Parkinson’s disease: Evaluation of a disease-specific questionnaire. Mov Disord 2003;18:503-9. |
| 96. | Hogan T, Grimaldi R, Dingemanse J, Martin M, Lyons K, Koller W. The Parkinson’s Disease Symptom Inventory (PDSI): A comprehensive and sensitive instrument to measure disease symptoms and treatment side-effects. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 1999;5:93-8. |
| 97. | Defer GL, Widner H, Marié RM, Rémy P, Levivier M. Core Assessment Program for Surgical Interventional Therapies in Parkinson’s Disease (CAPSIT-PD). Mov Disord 1999;14:572-84. |
| 98. | Reimer J, Grabowski M, Lindvall O, Hagell P. Use and interpretation of on/off diaries in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004;75:396-400. |
| 99. | Group TC, Martínez-Martin P, Gil-Nagel A, Gracia LM, Gómez JB, Martínez-Sarriés FJ, et al. Intermediate scale for assessment of Parkinson’s disease: Characteristics and structure. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 1995;1:97-102. |
| 100. | Stacy M, Hauser R. Development of a patient questionnaire to facilitate recognition of motor and non-motor wearing-off in Parkinson’s disease. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 2007;114:211-7. |
| 101. | Abbruzzese G, Antonini A, Barone P, Stocchi F, Tamburini T, Bernardi L, et al. Linguistic, psychometric validation and diagnostic ability assessment of an Italian version of a 19-item wearing-off questionnaire for wearing-off detection in Parkinson’s disease. Neurol Sci 2012;33:1319-27. |
| 102. | Hauser RA, Friedlander J, Zesiewicz TA, Adler CH, Seeberger LC, O’Brien CF, et al. A home diary to assess functional status in patients with Parkinson’s disease with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia. Clin Neuropharmacol 2000;23:75-81. |
| 103. | Visser M, Marinus J, Stiggelbout AM, Van Hilten JJ. Assessment of autonomic dysfunction in Parkinson’s disease: The SCOPA-AUT. Mov Disord 2004;19:1306-12. |
| 104. | Marinus J, Visser M, Verwey NA, Verhey FR, Middelkoop HA, Stiggelbout AM, et al. Assessment of cognition in Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 2003;61:1222-8. |
| 105. | Martínez-Martín P, Benito-León J, Burguera JA, Castro A, Linazasoro G, Martínez-Castrillo JC, et al. The SCOPA-Motor Scale for Assessment of Parkinson’s disease is a consistent and valid measure. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:674-9. |
| 106. | Martínez-Martín P, Carroza-García E, Frades-Payo B, Rodríguez-Blázquez C, Forjaz MJ, de Pedro-Cuesta J; Grupo ELEP. [Psychometric attributes of the SCales for Outcomes in PArkinson’s disease – Psychosocial (SCOPA-PS): Validation in Spain and review]. Rev Neurol 2009;49:1-7. |
| 107. | Marinus J, Visser M, Martínez-Martín P, van Hilten JJ, Stiggelbout AM. A short psychosocial questionnaire for patients with Parkinson’s disease: The SCOPA-PS. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:61-7. |
| 108. | Reyes M, Lloret S, Gerscovich E, Martin M, Leiguarda R, Merello M. Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination validation in Parkinson’s disease. Eur J Neurol 2009;16:142-7. |
| 109. | Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MOCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:695-9. |
| 110. | Hoops S, Nazem S, Siderowf AD, Duda JE, Xie SX, Stern MB, et al. Validity of the MOCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson disease. Neurology 2009;73:1738-45. |
| 111. | Aarsland D, Andersen K, Larsen JP, Perry R, Wentzel-Larsen T, Lolk A, et al. The rate of cognitive decline in Parkinson disease. Arch Neurol 2004;61:1906-11. |
| 112. | Llebaria G, Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J, García-Sánchez C, Pascual-Sedano B, Gironell A, et al. Cut-off score of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale for screening dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2008;23:1546-50. |
| 113. | Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J, Llebaria G, García-Sánchez C, Pascual-Sedano B, Gironell A. Parkinson’s disease-cognitive rating scale: A new cognitive scale specific for Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2008;23:998-1005. |
| 114. | Kalbe E, Calabrese P, Kohn N, Hilker R, Riedel O, Wittchen HU, et al. Screening for cognitive deficits in Parkinson’s disease with the Parkinson Neuropsychometric Dementia Assessment (PANDA) instrument. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2008;14:93-101. |
| 115. | Dávila G, Berthier ML, Kulisevsky J, Asenjo B, Gómez J, Lara JP, et al. Structural abnormalities in the substantia nigra and neighbouring nuclei in Tourette’s syndrome. J Neural Transm (Vienna) 2010;117:481-8. |
| 116. | Kulisevsky J, Pagonabarraga J. Tolerability and safety of ropinirole versus other dopamine agonists and levodopa in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Drug Saf 2010;33:147-61. |
| 117. | Pagonabarraga J, Corcuera-Solano I, Vives-Gilabert Y, Llebaria G, García-Sánchez C, Pascual-Sedano B, et al. Pattern of regional cortical thinning associated with cognitive deterioration in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS One 2013;8:e54980. |
| 118. | Chou KL, Amick MM, Brandt J, Camicioli R, Frei K, Gitelman D, et al; Parkinson Study Group Cognitive/Psychiatric Working Group. A recommended scale for cognitive screening in clinical trials of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2010;25:2501-7. |
| 119. | Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J, Llebaria G, García-Sánchez C, Pascual-Sedano B, Martinez-Corral M, et al. PDD-Short Screen: A brief cognitive test for screening dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2010;25:440-6. |
| 120. | Thaler NS, Hill BD, Duff K, Mold J, Scott JG. Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) intraindividual variability in older adults: Associations with disease and mortality. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2015;37:622-9. |
| 121. | Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E, Chase TN. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): Preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1998;20:310-9. |
| 122. | Chaudhuri KR, Odin P, Antonini A, Martinez-Martin P. Parkinson’s disease: The non-motor issues. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2011;17:717-23. |
[Table 1]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Clinical Evaluation of Sleep Disorders in Parkinson’s Disease |
|
| Fulvio Lauretani, Crescenzo Testa, Marco Salvi, Irene Zucchini, Francesco Giallauria, Marcello Maggio | | Brain Sciences. 2023; 13(4): 609 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
A Computerized Analysis with Machine Learning Techniques for the Diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease: Past Studies and Future Perspectives |
|
| Arti Rana, Ankur Dumka, Rajesh Singh, Manoj Kumar Panda, Neeraj Priyadarshi | | Diagnostics. 2022; 12(11): 2708 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Subgrouping and structural brain connectivity of Parkinson's disease – past studies and future directions |
|
| Tanmayee Samantaray, Jitender Saini, Cota Navin Gupta | | Neuroscience Informatics. 2022; 2(4): 100100 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Pimavanserin and Parkinson’s Disease Psychosis: A Narrative Review |
|
| Jamir Pitton Rissardo, Ícaro Durante, Idan Sharon, Ana Letícia Fornari Caprara | | Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(10): 1286 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
The impact of clinical scales in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review |
|
| Nikita Aggarwal, Barjinder Singh Saini, Savita Gupta | | The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery. 2021; 57(1) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for