SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Item Response Model Adaptation for Analyzing Data from Different Versions of Parkinson's Disease Rating Scales.

Pharm Res · 2019-07-17

DOI: 10.1007/s11095-019-2668-6PMID: 31317279

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

PurposeThe aim of this work was to allow combination of information from recent and historical trials in Parkinson's Disease (PD) by developing bridging methodology between two versions of the clinical endpoint.MethodsA previously developed Item Response Model (IRM), that described longitudinal changes in Movement Disorder Society (MDS) sponsored revision of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) [MDS-UPDRS] data from the De Novo PD cohort in Parkinson's Progression Markers Initiative, was first adapted to describe baseline UPDRS data from two clinical trials, one in subjects with early PD and another in subjects with advanced PD. Assuming similar IRM structure, items of the UPDRS version were mapped to those in the MDS-UPDRS version. Subsequently, the longitudinal changes in the placebo arm of the advanced PD study were characterized.ResultsThe parameters reflecting differences in the shared items between endpoints were successfully estimated, and the model diagnostics indicated that mapping was better for early PD subjects (closer to De Novo cohort) than for advanced PD subjects. Disease progression for placebo in advanced PD patients was relatively shallow.ConclusionAn IRM able to handle two variants of clinical PD endpoints was developed; it can improve the utilization of data from diverse sources and diverse disease populations.

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.