We assessed the clinometric characteristics of rating scales used for the evaluation of motor impairment and disability of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD), conducting a systematic review of PD rating scales published from 1960 to the present. Thirty studies describing clinometrics of 11 rating scales used for PD were identified. Outcome measures included validity (including factor structure), reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater, and intrarater) and responsiveness. We traced three impairment scales (Webster, Columbia University Rating Scale [CURS] and Parkinson's Disease Impairment Scale), four disability scales (Schwab and England, Northwestern University Disability Scale [NUDS], Intermediate Scale for Assessment of PD, and Extensive Disability Scale), and four scales evaluating both impairment and disability (New York University, University of California Los Angeles, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS], and Short Parkinson Evaluation Scale). The scales showed large differences in the extent of representation of items related to signs considered responsive to dopaminergic treatment or to those signs that appear late in the disease course and lack responsiveness to treatment. Regardless of the scale, there was a conspicuous lack of consistency concerning inter-rater reliability of bradykinesia, tremor, and rigidity. Overall disability items displayed moderate to good inter-rater reliability. The available evidence shows that CURS, NUDS, and UPDRS have moderate to good reliability and validity. In contrast to their widespread clinical use for assessment of impairment and disability in PD, the majority of the rating scales have either not been subjected to an extensive clinometric evaluation or have demonstrated clinometric shortcomings. The CURS, NUDS, and UPDRS are the most evaluated, valid, and reliable scales currently available.

Objective: To compare and contrast disease-specific quality of life instruments in Parkinson's disease and assess their clinimetric properties. Methods: Two reviewers independently evaluated both thoroughness and results of studies regarding clinimetric characteristics of identified scales. Results: Twenty studies were found reporting on the clinimetric properties of four scales. The content validity of the Parkinson's disease questionnaire-39 item version (PDQ-39), the Parkinson's disease quality of life questionnaire (PDQL), and the "Fragebogen Parkinson LebensQualität" (Parkinson Quality of Life questionnaire; PLQ) was adequate to good, but for the Parkinson's impact scale (PIMS) it was insufficient. Construct validity of both the PDQ-39 and the PDQL was good, but for the PLQ and the PIMS this was insufficiently evaluated. Internal consistency of all scale totals and of subscale totals of the PDQL were good, whereas for the social support subscale of the PDQ-39 and four subscales of the PLQ this was inadequate. Test-retest reliability was not evaluated for the PDQL and was adequate in the other scales. Responsiveness was partially established for the PDQ-39, and not assessed for the other scales. The number of available translations, as well as the number of studies in which these instruments were used, differed considerably. Conclusions: The selection of an instrument partially depends on the goal of the study. In many situations however, the PDQ-39 will probably be the most appropriate HRQoL instrument. The PDQL may be considered as an alternative, whereas the PLQ may be considered in studies involving German speaking patients with Parkinson's disease. Use of the PIMS should be considered only as a means of identifying areas of potential problems.

Bromocriptine versus levodopa in early Parkinson's disease (Review)

No abstract

No abstract