EVALUATION OF THE SHORT PARKINSONS EVALUATION SCALE - A NEW FRIENDLY SCALE FOR THE EVALUATION OF PARKINSONS-DISEASE IN CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS

Citation
Jm. Rabey et al., EVALUATION OF THE SHORT PARKINSONS EVALUATION SCALE - A NEW FRIENDLY SCALE FOR THE EVALUATION OF PARKINSONS-DISEASE IN CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS, Clinical neuropharmacology, 20(4), 1997, pp. 322-337
Citations number
22
Categorie Soggetti
Clinical Neurology","Pharmacology & Pharmacy
Journal title
ISSN journal
03625664
Volume
20
Issue
4
Year of publication
1997
Pages
322 - 337
Database
ISI
SICI code
0362-5664(1997)20:4<322:EOTSPE>2.0.ZU;2-Q
Abstract
The extensive use of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPD RS) has revealed low interrater reliability in some items and redundan cy in others. In view of these shortcomings, we have structured a new scale that includes a zero-to three-point scale for each item in the e valuation of PD. The mental axis includes memory, thought disorders, a nd depression. Activities of daily living (ADL) includes eight items: speech, eating, feeding, dressing, hygiene, handwriting, walking, and turning in bed. The motor examination includes eight items: speech, tr emor, rest and posture, rigidity, finger tapping, arising from chair, gait, and postural stability. Complications of therapy were also inclu ded: dyskinesias, dystonia, motor fluctuations, and freezing episodes, collected by history. In addition, a global scoring for motor fluctua tions that should complement the Hoehn and Yahr Scale was incorporated . In this report, we present a statistical analysis of the ADL, motor evaluation, and complications of therapy sections. Concerning the inte rrater reliability mean, Kendall's W values were >0.9 for most of the items in the Short Parkinson's Evaluation Scale (SPES). Kendall's W <0 .8 (motor evaluation) was found for two items of the SPES and nine ite ms of the UPDRS. The mean interrater reliability for both scales acros s all seven centers (seven Kendall's W for seven centers) (Mann-Whitne y test) showed no statistical differences between the scales. Spearman 's correlations between items of both scales were significant. Factor analysis of the SPES and UPDRS data revealed a four-factor solution th at explained similar to 60% of the data. All participating centers fou nd the SPES easier to apply and quicker to complete, when compared wit h the UPDRS. The results obtained strongly favor the introduction of S PES for clinical practice.