SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Validation of the Japanese Version of the Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease-Rating Scale (QUIP-RS).

Parkinsons Dis · 2022-03-23

DOI: 10.1155/2022/1503167PMID: 35371432

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

IntroductionThe Questionnaire for Impulsive-Compulsive Disorders in Parkinson's Disease (PD)-Rating Scale (QUIP-RS) was developed to assess the severity of impulsive and compulsive behaviors (ICBs) in PD. We aimed to validate the Japanese version of QUIP-RS and determine the characteristics of ICBs in Japan.MethodsWe translated the QUIP-RS into Japanese, back-translated it to English, and obtained confirmation from the original author that the questionnaire remained appropriate. The participants for the validation study were 161 PD patients, identified by continuous sampling at two institutions, who were diagnosed with ICBs through a semistructured interview and completed the QUIP-RS-J. Sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Interinstitutional reliability and test-retest reliability were also assessed for a subset of participants.ResultsTwenty-six (16.1%) participants were diagnosed with ICB. The optimal cutoff value of the QUIP-RS-J total score was 6, with area under the curve (AUC) = 0.889 and sensitivity/specificity of 0.92/0.71. Each subscale also showed high AUC (0.89-1.00), sensitivity (0.92-1.00), and specificity (0.71-1.00). Compared with the English version, the optimal cutoff point for binge eating was higher and hypersexuality lower. The total score tended to be higher when described by an informant.ConclusionThe present study validated the Japanese version of QUIP-RS. Use of QUIP-RS-J enables standardized assessment of ICBs and can be used in clinical research, including international multicenter studies.

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.