SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease: Translation and psychometric evaluation of the Iranian version of PDQ-39.

J Res Med Sci · 2010-03-01

PMID: 21526061

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundHealth related quality of life is an important outcome measure in studies involving patients with chronic neurological conditions. Disease specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as primary end points in clinical trials. The most widely used disease specific PROM is the 39 item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39). The aim of this study was to determine validity and reliability of Persian PDQ-39.MethodsTwo hundred Parkinson's disease patients attending neurologic clinics of teaching hospitals were recruited. PD patients completed a translated version of the PDQ-39. Internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Reproducibility was assessed across the 3-week interval using the intraclass correlation coefficient. To assess convergent validity, results on the PDQ-39 were correlated with those gained on the SF-36. Discriminate validity of questionnaire was assessed by comparing PDQ-39 scores and the severity and the duration of disease.ResultsA value of 0.93 (Cronbach's α) was gained for the summary score (PDQ-SI), indicating high levels of internal reliability. Alpha value of seven domains was greater than 0.70. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.47 to 0.90. The range of correlation coefficients between domains of SF-36 and PDQ-SI was from -0.40 to -0.61. There was a statistically significant difference between severity of disease and mean scores of PDSI.ConclusionsThis study provides evidence that the Persian version of PDQ-39 is a valid and reliable measure of quality of life in PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.