SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

The REM Sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire is not Valid in De Novo Parkinson's Disease.

Mov Disord Clin Pract · 2018-03-01

DOI: 10.1002/mdc3.12591PMID: 30009211

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

BackgroundRapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is one of the most specific prodromal indicators for Parkinson's disease (PD).ObjectivesTo test the validity of the RBD-Screening Questionnaire (RBDSQ) in assessing RBD in early PD.MethodsThe RBDSQ was completed before video-supported polysomnography (vPSG) by 134 de novo PD patients, 109 matched controls without neurological disorder (CTR) and 30 subjects with idiopathic RBD (iRBD) without clinical signs of PD; results were compared with vPSG-confirmed RBD diagnosis.Results and conclusionsSensitivity/specificity of the RBDSQ for the PD cohort were 0.44/0.84 at the previously published cut-off score of 6 for PD patients, and the area under the curve (AUC) 0.68 (95% CI, 0.56-0.79). By contrast, in the iRBD/CTR cohort the RBDSQ (cut-off = 5) had a sensitivity/specificity of 0.97/0.84 and an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.00). Subanalysis of question 6 only (4 subitems asking for dream enactment) at a cut-off score of 1 revealed a sensitivity of 0.74 and a specificity of 0.70 for the de novo PD cohort, AUC was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.84). RBDSQ is an insufficient screening tool for RBD in de novo PD. New screening tools for RBD assessment need to be developed.

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.