SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Validation of a Parkinson's disease questionnaire-39-based functional mobility composite score (FMCS) in people with Parkinson's disease.

Parkinsonism Relat Disord · 2023-05-17

DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2023.105442PMID: 37210979

Check source for accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

IntroductionFunctional mobility is an important outcome for people with Parkinson's disease (PwP). Despite this, there is no established patient-reported outcome measure that serves as a gold standard for assessing patient-reported functional mobility in PwP. We aimed to validate the algorithm calculating the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39) based Functional Mobility Composite Score (FMCS).MethodsWe designed a count-based algorithm to measure patient-reported functional mobility in PwP from items of the PDQ-39 subscales mobility and activities of daily living. Convergent validity of the algorithm calculating the PDQ-39-based FMCS was assessed using the objective Timed Up and Go (n = 253) and discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the FMCS with patient-reported (MDS-UPDRS II) and clinician-assessed (MDS-UPDRS III) motor symptoms as well as between disease stages (H&Y) and PIGD phenotypes (n = 736). Participants were between 22 and 92 years old, with a disease duration from 0 to 32 years and 64.9% in a H&Y 1-2 ranging from 1 to 5.ResultsSpearman correlation coefficients (rs) ranging from -0.45 to -0.77 (p s = -0.77) than clinician-reported MDS-UPDRS III (rs = -0.45) and can discriminate between disease stages as between PIGD phenotypes (p ConclusionThe FMCS is a valid composite score to assess functional mobility through patient reports in PwP for studying functional mobility in studies using the PDQ-39.

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.