Analysis of the Measurement Properties of the King's Parkinson's Disease Pain Scale (KPPS-Brazil) and the Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire for individuous with Parkinson Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Pain is a very prevalent and disabling symptom in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Along with this symptom, the disease's motor alterations related to other non-motor symptoms may cause it difficult to perform activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, it is critical to assess pain using a specific tool capable of classifying the several types of pain present in PD as well as evaluating the patient's perceived ability to do ADL. Instruments with adequate measuring properties and clinical utility are required for this. Objective: To investigate the measurement properties of the King’s Parkinson’s Disease Pain Scale (KPPS-Brazil) and the Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (ADLQ-Brazil). Methods: This methodological study investigated the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the KPPS-Brazil and the ADLQ-Brazil in people with PD in accordance with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). Fifty patients (30 men, mean age 68±9.5 years) were evaluated in two moments (test and retest), with an interval of 7 to 10 days. KPPS-Brazil and ADLQ-Brazil were applied in the test and retest, and the application of the ADLQ in the retest was carried out through telephone contact. Body structure and function components were assessed (pain: McGill Questionnaire; depressive symptoms: Beck Depression Inventory, BDI; fatigue: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, MFIS; sleep disorders: Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale, PDSS; apathy: Apathy Scale and balance: MiniBESTest), activity (digital dexterity: Nine Hole Peg Test, 9- HPT; mobility: Timed Up and Go, TUG, including dual task and functional capacity: Moviment Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale , MDS-UPDRSII) and participation (quality of life: The 39 item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire, PDQ-39). Test-retest reliability was assessed by kappa (k) statistics for individual KPPS items and by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for individual ADLQ items and total scores of both instruments. The measurement standard error (SEM) and the minimum detectable change (DMC) were also calculated and the Bland-Altman graph was analyzed for agreement analysis. For the assessment of construct validity, predefined hypotheses were created to estimate the strength of correlations between the KPPS and ADLQ scores and measures of body structure and function, activity and participation using Spearman's correlation coefficients. Results: A high level of agreement was found between the total KPPS scores obtained in both applications (ICC = 0.992; CI 95%=0.983–0.996). For the domains, 57% had very high reliability (ICC > 0.90) and 43% had high reliability (ICC > 0.75). SEM (1.09) and DMC (3,02) showed clinically acceptable values. Of the established hypotheses, 83% were confirmed, indicating adequate KPPS-Brazil construct validity. For the ADLQ, a high level of agreement was also found for the total scores (ICC = 0.997; 95% CI=0.994–0.998). Nineteen items had almost perfect agreement (k=0.81–1.0) and one of them had perfect reliability (k=1.0). SEM (2.16) and DMC (5.9) showed clinically acceptable values. Regarding the established hypotheses, 100% were confirmed, indicating adequate construct validity of the ADLQ-Brazil. Conclusions: Both the KPPS-Brazil and the ADLQ-Brazil were found to be valid and reliable for evaluating pain and ADL performance in individuals with PD, respectively.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».