Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionPain is a burdensome non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD). However, its mechanisms are complex, complicating pain phenotyping. The PD Pain Classification System (PD-PCS) classifies pain mechanisms and their relationship with PD pathology. We developed a Japanese PD-PCS and evaluated its reliability and preliminary construct validity.MethodsThe PD-PCS was translated and adapted under developer supervision using an ISPOR-guided process. People with PD and chronic pain were recruited from two hospitals (n = 31). Intra- and inter-rater reliability were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the PD-PCS pain score and κ for categorical classifications (95% CIs). The standard error of measurement (SEM) and the smallest detectable change (SDC) were calculated. Construct validity was examined using Spearman's correlations between the PD-PCS pain score and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI; average pain, interference).ResultsCognitive debriefing identified wording issues that were resolved through revisions, resulting in the final Japanese version. Participants (n = 31) had a mean age of 70.5 ± 8.3 years, and 16 (51.6%) were men. The intra-rater reliability was good (ICC[3,1] = 0.768, 95% CI, 0.575-0.880; SEM 10.4; SDC_individual 29.0), and the inter-rater reliability was excellent (ICC[2,1] = 0.917, 95% CI, 0.836-0.959; SEM 5.8; SDC_individual 16.0). The agreement between pain mechanisms and PD-related pain classification was substantial to perfect (κ = 0.755-1.000). The PD-PCS pain score correlated with BPI average pain (ρ = 0.744) and interference (ρ = 0.747).ConclusionThe Japanese PD-PCS demonstrated good to excellent reliability and preliminary construct validity, supporting its use in mechanism-informed pain classification in Japanese people with PD.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.