³Ô¹ÏÌìÌÃ91

Parkinson¡¯s Disease: 

(Luo et al, 2009; n = 96, mean age = 58.4(8.8), H&Y Stage: 1, n = 3; 2, n = 72; 2.5 = 15, 3, n = 6, 4:n = 0; Tertiary neuroscience clinic in Singapore) 

• Anchor based Minimally Important Difference range over 1 year: 5.78-7.4 points 
  • The mean change (95% CI) in PDQ-8SI scores for (n = 28) patients who reported that their overall health status was ¡®¡®a little worse¡¯¡¯ than 1 year ago = 7.37 (0.09, 14.64) 
  • The mean change (95% CI) in PDQ-8SI scores for (n = 28) patients who reported that their PD severity was ¡®¡®a little worse¡¯¡¯ = 5.78 (20.54, 12.09) 
  • The mean change (95% CI) in PDQ-8SI scores for (n = 23) patients who reported that the impact of PD on their life was ¡®¡®a little greater,¡¯¡¯ the mean change (95% CI) = 6.79 (20.26, 13.85)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease:

(Jenkinson et al, 1997; Survey Group 1: n = 227, mean age = 70(9); Survey Group 2: n = 359, no data on age) 

Combined groups subset: Mean PDQ-8 Scores by Stage: 

• H&Y I: n = 37, Mean score = 17.74(16.27) 
• H&Y II: n = 58, Mean score = 33.14(18.80) 
• H&Y III: n = 21, Mean score = 37.05(22.05) 
• H&Y IV: n = 19, Mean score = 47.86(16.17)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease:

(Katsauou et al, 2004; n = 228; mean age = 59.3(8.7); H&Y stage: I: n = 22; II: n = 103; III: n = 31, IV: n = 42; Greek OP PD & movement disorders unit) 

• ICC = 0.72 

(Luo et al, 2009; taken median 1.7 years apart) 

• ICC = 0.75; calculated for pts reporting ¡°no change in health status 
• ICC = 0.76; calculated for pts reporting ¡°no change in PD severity¡± 
• ICC = 0.64; calculated for pts reporting ¡°no change in PD impact

Parkinson¡¯s Disease: 

(Huang et al, 2010; n = 100; mean age = 62.04(11.33); mean H&Y Stage = 2.21(1.18); Taiwanese movement disorders unit) 

• Excellent inter-rater reliability for 10 consecutive subjects (ICC = 1)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease: 

(Jenkinson et al, 2007; n = 819; mean age = 68.35(9.49); mean H&Y stage = varies by country) 

• USA: n = 185, H&Y Stage = 2.54(0.88) 
  • Excellent (Cronbach a = 0.88) 
• Japan: n = 100, H&Y Stage = 2.85(0.95) 
  • Adequate (Cronbach a = 0.73) 
• Canada: n = 126, H&Y Stage = 2.65(1.03) 
  • Excellent (Cronbach a = 0.83) 
• Italy: n = 205, H&Y Stage = 2.45(1.09) 
  • Excellent (Cronbach a = 0.87) 
• Spain: n = 200, H&Y Stage = 2.47(1.09) 
  • Adequate (Cronbach a = 0.79) 

(Tan et al, 2004; n = 68; mean age = 63.1(9.6); no age/H&Y stage reported;English speaking Singapore sample) 

• Adequate (Cronbach a = 0.75) 

(Tan et al, 2007; English speaking: n = 104;mean age = 59.9(9.8); mean H&Y stage = 2.3(0.7); Chinese speaking; n = 79; mean age = 62.5(9.7); mean H&Y stage = 2.3(0.7); English and Chinese speaking pts in Singapore) 

• Excellent (Cronbach a = 0.81); English Speaking 
• Excellent (Cronbach a = 0.87); Chinese Speaking 

(Huang et al, 2010) 

• Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a = 0.81) 

(Frannchignoni et al, 2008; n = 200; mean age = 72(7); years of disease = 7(5) median H&Y stage = 3; Italian sample 

• Adequate (Cronbach a = 0.72) 

(Caap-Ahlgren M, Dehlin O, 2004; n = 91; mean age = 70(5), mean duration of PD = 10 (range 2-35); H&Y Stages 1-5 represented) 

• Adequate (Cronbach a = 0.74)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease:

Concurrent Validity PDQ-8 & PDQ-39: 

(Jenkinson et al, 1997) 

• Excellent (r = 0.96); n = 459 

(Jenkinson & Fitzpatrick, 2007) 

• USA, n = 178 
  • Excellent (Spearman¡¯s rho = 0.96) 
• Japan, n = 97 
  • Excellent (Spearman¡¯s rho = 0.92) 
• Canada, n = 124 
  • Excellent (Spearman¡¯s rho = 0.96) 
• Italy, n = 195 
  • Excellent (Spearman¡¯s rho = 0.96) 
• Spain, n = 194 
  • Excellent (Spearman¡¯s rho = 0.93) 

(Tan et al, 2004) 

• Excellent (Pearson¡¯s r = 0.96) 
• Excellent (ICC = 0.95)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease

(Jenkinson & Fitzpatrick, 2007; convergent validity with H&Y Stages) 

• USA, n = 178 
  • Adequate (Spearman correlation = 0.51) 
• Japan, n = 96 
  • Adequate (Spearman correlation = 0.47) 
• Canada, n = 119 
  • Adequate (Spearman correlation = 0.51) 
• Italy, n = 195 
  • Adequate (Spearman correlation = 0.47) 
• Spain, n = 194 
  • Excellent (Spearman correlation = 0.61) 

(Jenkinson et al, 1997) 

Convergent validity with Columbia rating scale 

• Adequate (r = 0.47); n = 135 

(Martinez-Martin et al, 2005; n = 57 caregiver-subject pairs; mean age PD = 67.01(6.16); mean H&Y Stage = 2.60(0.74)) 

Convergent validity with PDQ-8 by proxy 

•  Excellent (ICC = 0.77-0.82) 

(Tan et al, 2007; Convergent validity with PD disease duration, H&Y Stage, UPDRS motor score)

• English speaking 
  • Long history of PD: Adequate (correlation coefficient = 0.39) 
  • Higher H&Y Stage: Adequate (correlation coefficient = 0.38)
  • Higher UPDRS motor score: Adequate (correlation coefficient = 0.39) 
• Chinese speaking 
  • Long history of PD: Poor (correlation coefficient = 0.17) 
  • Higher H&Y Stage: Poor (correlation coefficient = 0.29) 
  • Higher UPDRS motor score: Poor (correlation coefficient = 0.25) 

(Huang et al, 2010; Convergent validity with PD disease duration, H&Y Stage, UPDRS motor, ADL, and mental scores)

• Long disease duration: Adequate (correlation coefficient) = 0.43 
• Higher H&Y Stage: Adequate (correlation coefficient = 0.53) 
• Higher UPDRS motor score: Adequate (correlation coefficient = 0.47) 
• Higher UPDRS mental score: Adequate (correlation coefficient = 0.52) 
• Higher UPDRS ALD score: Excellent (correlation coefficient = 0.60) 

(Caap-Ahlgren M, Dehlin O, 2004) 

Convergent validity of the PDQ-8 with: 

• Hoehn & Yahr Stage: Adequate (Spearman correlation = 0.52) 
• SF-36: Excellent (Spearman correlation = 0.72) 
• Geriatric Depression Scale: Excellent (Spearman correlation = 0.66) 
• Insomnia: Adequate (Spearman correlation = 0.42) 
• Sense of Coherence (SOC) Scale: Adequate(Spearman correlation = 0.53)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease:

No studies have found floor or ceiling effects in this measure 

(Jenkinson et al, 2007) 

• No ceiling/floor effects: n = 25(3.05%) scored 0 (min); n = 2(0.24%) scored 100(max) 

(Tan et al, 2007) 

• No ceiling/floor effects 

(Huang et al, 2010; n = 100; mean age = 62.04(11.33); mean H&Y stage = 2.21(1.18); Taiwanese movement disorders unit 

• No ceiling/floor effects: n = 12 scored < 5; n = 1 scored  > 95 

(Frannchignoni et al, 2008) 

• No ceiling/floor effects: n = 2 scored 0 (min); n = 0 scored 100 (max)

Parkinson¡¯s Disease:

(Luo et al, 2010; n = 31; mean age = 60.6(10); H&Y Scale, baseline = 2.09(0.38); H&Y Scale, follow-up = 2.40(0.7); 4 years follow-up 

• Large responsiveness (Effect Size (ES) = 1.22) 
• SRM = 0.89 

(Luo et al, 2009; taken median 1.7 years apart) 

• Pt reported perceived health status change: 
  • Better: Effect size (ES) = 0.40 
  • Worse: Effect size (ES) = 0.32 
  • Same: Effect size (ES) = 0.08
•  Pt reported perceived PD Severity change: 
  • Better: Effect size (ES) = 0.40 
  • Worse: Effect size (ES) = 0.27 
  • Same: Effect size (ES) = 0.05 
• Pt reported perceived PD Impact change: 
  • Better: Effect size (ES) = 0.39 
  • Worse: Effect size (ES) = 0.23 
  • Same: Effect size (ES) = 0.10 

(Laupheimer M, Schmidt K, 2011.) 

Responsiveness to Exercise Intervention 

• Intervention group : n = 21, mean age = 67.5(7.8), mean disease duration = 7.2(5.6), mean H&Y Stage = 2.69(0.75); 10 week FE cycling program with motor assisted therapy device 
• Control group : n = 23, mean age = 71.3(4.0), mean disease duration = 11.0(7.2), mean H&Y Stage = 2.7(0.63) 
  • Changes approached significance for questions #2 and #3: ¡°dressing¡± (F = 2.60; p = 0.09; p.Eta? = 0.058) and ¡°depressions¡± (F = 2.92; p = 0.06; p.Eta? = 0.065). 
  • There were no significant trends for questions #1 and #4-10: ¡°appearance in public,¡± ¡°personal contacts,¡± ¡°concentration,¡± ¡°communication,¡± ¡°muscle tensions,¡± and ¡°embarrassment¡± 

(Onofrj et al, 2004: Entacapone intervention (3, 4, or 5 doses daily) N = 896, mean age = 69.8(9.3), mean duration of PD = 7.9(5.2)) 

Responsiveness to Pharmacological Intervention 

• Overall mean reduction (improvement) in PDQ-8 score from baseline across 3 treatment groups = 1.8 points (95%-CI: [1.5, 2%]) 
• By dosage group: 
  • 3 dose daily (n = 350): Mean reduction (improvement)[95% CI] = 1.5 points [1.1,2.0] 
  • 4 dose daily (n = 330): Mean reduction (improvement)[95% CI] = 1.8 [1.4,2.3] 
  • 5 dose daily (n = 216): Mean reduction (improvement)[95% CI] = 2.0 [1.5,2.0] 
  • Intergroup comparison showed there was no statistically significant difference in benefit in QoL between the three different dose regimen groups. 

(Fung et al, 2009; n = 184, mean age = 63.9(9.87), mean duration of PD = 3.7(3.08), H&Y Stages 1-2.5 ) 

• Levodopa/Carbidopa/Entacapone (L/C/E) intervention group, (n = 93): Mean reduction (improvement) of PDQ-8 Score = 0.8 points 
• Levodopa/Carbidopa (L/C) intervention group (n = 91): Mean increase (worsening) of PDQ-8 Score = 0.6 points 
• The 1.4 point difference between the 2 groups (L/C/E and L/C) was statistically significant (p = 0.021) 
• A treatment effect was noted at the individual questions level, which favored the L/C/E group in all 8 questions 
• Statistically significant differences in mean change were seen for questions #3 (depression, P = 0.025), #4 (close personal relationships, P = 0.037), #6 (communication; P = 0.007), and #8 (social stigma, P = 0.033). 
• Difference in mean change of question #2 (dressing) approached significance (P = 0.056) 
• Differences in mean change for questions #1 (mobility), #5 (concentration), and #7 (muscle cramps or spasms) were not statistically significant. 

(Honig et al, 2009; n = 22 patients with advanced PD, mean age = 58.6(9.1), mean duration of PD = 15.3(5.9), H&Y Stages: H&Y 1 = 0, H&Y 2 = 1, H&Y 2.5 = 1, H&Y 3 = 6, H&Y 4 = 10, H&Y 5 = 4; mean duration of L-dopa infusion treatment 6.7(2.8 months)) 

• Baseline mean PDQ-8 scores = 44.2(18.4) and follow-up mean PDQ-8 scores = 20.7 ¡À 12.0) 
• Mean change in PDQ-8 score = 23.4 points (p = 0.0003) 
• Relative change in score = ¨C53% 
• ES (Large) = 1.3