SCIENTIFIC HUB

Araştırmanın izini sürün.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Parkinson hastalığındaki halüsinasyonların ve Lewy cisimleriyle demansın tedavisinde klinik olarak en az önemli farklılıklar.

Minimal clinically important differences for treatment of hallucinations in Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies.

Makine çevirisi · Editoryal inceleme bekliyor

Psychol Med · 2025-03-24

DOI: 10.1017/s0033291725000534PMID: 40125723

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleKaynağa git ↗

Araştırma özeti

Aşağıdaki metin kaynak makalenin lisansı doğrulanmış orijinal özetidir. cc by

BackgroundHallucinations are common and distressing symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD). Treatment response in clinical trials is measured using validated questionnaires, including the Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms-Hallucinations (SAPS-H) and University of Miami PD Hallucinations Questionnaire (UM-PDHQ). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined for either scale. This study aimed to estimate a range of MCIDs for SAPS-H and UM-PDHQ using both consensus-based and statistical approaches.MethodsA Delphi survey was used to seek opinions of researchers, clinicians, and people with lived experience. We defined consensus as agreement ≥75%. Statistical approaches used blinded data from the first 100 PD participants in the Trial for Ondansetron as Parkinson's Hallucinations Treatment (TOP HAT, NCT04167813). The distribution-based approach defined the MCID as 0.5 of the standard deviation of change in scores from baseline at 12 weeks. The anchor-based approach defined the MCID as the average change in scores corresponding to a 1-point improvement in clinical global impression-severity scale (CGI-S).ResultsFifty-one researchers and clinicians contributed to three rounds of the Delphi survey and reached consensus that the MCID was 2 points on both scales. Sixteen experts with lived experience reached the same consensus. Distribution-defined MCIDs were 2.6 points for SAPS-H and 1.3 points for UM-PDHQ, whereas anchor-based MCIDs were 2.1 and 1.3 points, respectively.ConclusionsWe used triangulation from multiple methodologies to derive the range of MCID estimates for the two rating scales, which was between 2 and 2.7 points for SAPS-H and 1.3 and 2 points for UM-PDHQ.

Bilimsel değerlendirme

01

Araştırma sorusu

Sorunun kapsamı orijinal çalışma üzerinden değerlendirilir.

02

Yöntem ve örneklem

Çalışma tasarımı ve örneklem için kaynak makaleyi kontrol edin.

03

Temel bulgular

Bu kayıt için editoryal olarak onaylanmış bulgu özeti henüz yayımlanmadı.

04

Sınırlılıklar

Sonuçların genellenebilirliği, yanlılık ve klinik anlamı ayrıca incelenmelidir.

Bibliyografik veriden yöntem, örneklem veya klinik sonuç çıkarımı yapılmaz.