SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Impulse control disorders in Parkinson's disease: A systematic review on the psychometric properties of the existing measures.

PLoS One · 2019-06-04

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217700PMID: 31163065

Open accessresearch-article; Systematic Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundA significant percentage of patients suffering from Parkinson's Disease (PD) experience Impulse Control Disorders (ICDs), contributing to reduced quality of life. As they can be managed by reducing the dopamine dosage, the detection of their presence is crucial for PD treatment plan. Nevertheless, they tend to be under-recognized in clinical practice, since routine screening is not common-despite existing instruments that may support clinicians. This work presents a systematic review on the psychometric properties of instruments measuring ICDs in PD, to test whether clinicians dispose of valid tools that may help them in clinical assessment.MethodA systematic literature search in three databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) was conducted. Quality of the instruments' psychometric properties was evaluated with Terwee et al.'s criteria, and methodological quality of the studies was evaluated with the COSMIN Checklist.ResultsTen studies examining seven instruments were selected. The Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease (QUIP) and the Ardouin Scale of Behavior in Parkinson's Disease (ASBPD) resulted to be the best from a psychometric point of view.ConclusionsThough the gold standard for diagnosis remains a detailed diagnostic interview, this review will encourage clinicians to use validated tools to accurately assess ICDs.

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.