4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Restless legs syndrome prevalence and impact - REST general population study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 165, 期 11, 页码 1286-1292

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.11.1286

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Restless legs syndrome (RLS), a common sensorimotor disorder, has a wide range of severity from merely annoying to affecting sleep and quality of life severely enough to warrant medical treatment. Previous epidemiological studies, however, have failed to determine the prevalence of those with clinically significant RLS symptoms and to examine the life effects and medical experiences of this group. Methods: A total of 16 202 adults (aged ! 18 years) were interviewed using validated diagnostic questions to determine the presence, frequency, and severity of RLS symptoms;, respondents reporting RLS symptoms were asked about medical diagnoses and the impact of the disorder and completed the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). Criteria determined by RLS experts for medically significant RLS (frequency at least twice a week, distress at least moderate) defined RLS sufferers as a group most likely to warrant medical treatment. Results: In all, 15 391 fully completed questionnaires were obtained; in the past year, RLS symptoms of any frequency were reported by 1114 (7.2%). Symptoms occurred at least weekly for 773 respondents (5.0%);, they occurred at least 2 times per week and were reported as moderately or severely distressing by 416 (2.7%). Of those 4.16 (termed RLS sufferers), 337 (81.0%) reported discussing their symptoms with a primary care physician, and only 21 (6.2%) were given a diagnosis of RLS. The SF-36 scores for RLS sufferers were significantly below population norms, matching those of patients with other chronic medical conditions. Conclusion: Clinically significant RLS is common (prevalence, 2.7%), is underdiagnosed, and significantly affects sleep and quality of life.

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

4.0
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