Psychological medicine · 2025
Minimal clinically important differences for treatment of hallucinations in Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Reeves Suzanne, Mahdi Josef, Appleby Matthew, Zubko Olga, Lee Teresa, Barber Julie A, Liu Kathy Y, Taylor John-Paul, Henderson Emily J, Schrag Anette, Howard Robert, Weil Rimona S, Hallucinations Working Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hallucinations 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.
METHODS: A 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).
RESULTS: Fifty-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.
CONCLUSIONS: We 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.
METHODS: A 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).
RESULTS: Fifty-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.
CONCLUSIONS: We 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.