4.5 Article

Comparing results from long and short form versions of the Parkinson's disease questionnaire in a longitudinal study

期刊

PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 1312-1316

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.09.008

关键词

Parkinson's disease questionnaire; PDQ-39; PDQ-8; PDQ single index; Patient reported outcomes

资金

  1. NHS Health Technology Assessment programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which summary index scores from the short form Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) replicate those from the parent form (PDQ-39) in a longitudinal study. Methods: Longitudinal data gained from the PD-MED trial were examined (n = 1867), to determine the extent the PDQ-8 replicates results from the PDQ-39 at baseline and follow up. The sensitivity to change of the PDQ-8 was also compared with that of the PDQ-39. Finally, results on the two measures were compared with those from the Hoehn and Yahr (HY) clinical staging scale. Results: Results of the Single Index summary score gained from the PDQ-8 were found to closely replicate those gained from the PDQ-39 at each of the three time points. Furthermore at each time point the intraclass correlation coefficient between the two measures was very high (ICC range 0.93-0.96). Similarly, the two measures gave very similar accounts of change (e.g. from baseline to follow up at one year effect sizes were 0.18 for the single index calculated using the PDQ-39, and 0.09 when calculated using the PDQ-8). Similar levels of correlation were found between the two indices when correlated with the HY scale. Conclusions: The PDQ-8 closely replicates results gained from the PDQ-39 when calculating single indices. In instances where a single summary score of the impact of PD on self-reported quality of life is needed, it is likely the PDQ-8 will provide reliable and accurate information. Crown Copyright (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据