SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Fatigue in Parkinson's disease: Brazilian validation of the modified fatigue impact scale.

Arq Neuropsiquiatr · 2020-07-22

DOI: 10.1590/0004-282x20200033PMID: 32725051

Check source for accessJournal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundThe instruments that measure the impact of fatigue on physical, cognitive and psychosocial aspects has yet to be validated in Brazilian population with Parkinson's disease (PD). The aim of this study was to cross-culturally adapt and assess the psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-PD/BR).MethodsNinety PD individuals were recruited. The adaptation of the MFIS-PD was performed by translation and back translation methodology. Psychometric analysis was applied in order to perform the administration of the socio-clinical questionnaire, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS Part I-IV), Hoehn-Yahr disability scale (HY), hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), fatigue severity scale (FSS), Parkinson Fatigue Scale (PFS-16), and MFIS-PD/BR with retest of the MFIS-PD/BR after 7 days.ResultsThe adaptation phase kept the same items of original MFIS-PD. The Cronbach's alpha for the MFIS-PD/BR was 0.878 when all responses items were scored. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients was above 0.80 (p29 points as cut-off point to indicate fatigued subjects with accuracy of 0.835 (pConclusionsThe MFIS-PD/BR is valid and reproducible to use in assessing the fatigue symptom in Brazilian PD subjects.

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.