4.1 Article

The REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire is not Valid in De Novo Parkinson's Disease

Journal

MOVEMENT DISORDERS CLINICAL PRACTICE
Volume 5, Issue 2, Pages 171-176

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12591

Keywords

DeNoPa cohort; prodromal marker; Parkinson's disease; REM sleep behavior disorder screening questionnaire; RBDSQ

Funding

  1. European Union's Horizon research and innovation program Propag-Ageing [634821]
  2. University Medical Centre Gottingen
  3. Paracelsus-Elena-Klinik, Kassel, Germany
  4. Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research (MJFF)
  5. TEVA Pharma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundRapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is one of the most specific prodromal indicators for Parkinson's disease (PD). ObjectivesTo test the validity of the RBD-Screening Questionnaire (RBDSQ) in assessing RBD in early PD. MethodsThe RBDSQ was completed before video-supported polysomnography (vPSG) by 134 de novo PD patients, 109 matched controls without neurological disorder (CTR) and 30 subjects with idiopathic RBD (iRBD) without clinical signs of PD; results were compared with vPSG-confirmed RBD diagnosis. Results and ConclusionsSensitivity/specificity of the RBDSQ for the PD cohort were 0.44/0.84 at the previously published cut-off score of 6 for PD patients, and the area under the curve (AUC) 0.68 (95% CI, 0.56-0.79). By contrast, in the iRBD/CTR cohort the RBDSQ (cut-off = 5) had a sensitivity/specificity of 0.97/0.84 and an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00). Subanalysis of question 6 only (4 subitems asking for dream enactment) at a cut-off score of 1 revealed a sensitivity of 0.74 and a specificity of 0.70 for the de novo PD cohort, AUC was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.84). RBDSQ is an insufficient screening tool for RBD in de novo PD. New screening tools for RBD assessment need to be developed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available