Psychometric properties of outcome measures for freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.8 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2025.2477473

Prisca Proietti, Ilaria Ruotolo, Alessandra Carlizza, Alessandro Ugolini, Giovanni Galeoto, Giovanni Fabbrini, Giovanni Sellitto

{"title":"Psychometric properties of outcome measures for freezing of gait in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Prisca Proietti, Ilaria Ruotolo, Alessandra Carlizza, Alessandro Ugolini, Giovanni Galeoto, Giovanni Fabbrini, Giovanni Sellitto","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2025.2477473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated validated tools for assessing FOG in PD, focusing on their psychometric properties, linguistic adaptations, and methodological quality.Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, following PRISMA-COSMIN guidelines. Studies assessing validity, reliability, and cross-cultural adaptation of FOG-specific tools were included. Key psychometric properties, such as internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC), were extracted. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess methodological quality, and meta-analyses were performed for comparable studies.Results: Six validated tools were identified, with FOG-Q and NFOG-Q emerging as the most robust. Meta-analysis showed high internal consistency (FOG-Q: α = 0.90; NFOG-Q: α = 0.87-0.89) and test-retest reliability (FOG-Q ICC = 0.87), though substantial heterogeneity was noted (I² = 71.1-86.4%). Emerging tools, including CFOG-Q, Ziegler test, and DYPAGS, addressed cognitive and dual-tasking aspects but lacked linguistic validation.Conclusion: FOG-Q and NFOG-Q remain widely used, yet NFOG-Q may have limitations in detecting small clinical changes. Broader linguistic adaptations are needed, and emerging tools hold promise for multidimensional assessment. Future research should integrate subjective and objective measures for comprehensive evaluations.Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020173873).","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2025.2477473","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated validated tools for assessing FOG in PD, focusing on their psychometric properties, linguistic adaptations, and methodological quality.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, following PRISMA-COSMIN guidelines. Studies assessing validity, reliability, and cross-cultural adaptation of FOG-specific tools were included. Key psychometric properties, such as internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC), were extracted. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess methodological quality, and meta-analyses were performed for comparable studies.

Results: Six validated tools were identified, with FOG-Q and NFOG-Q emerging as the most robust. Meta-analysis showed high internal consistency (FOG-Q: α = 0.90; NFOG-Q: α = 0.87-0.89) and test-retest reliability (FOG-Q ICC = 0.87), though substantial heterogeneity was noted (I² = 71.1-86.4%). Emerging tools, including CFOG-Q, Ziegler test, and DYPAGS, addressed cognitive and dual-tasking aspects but lacked linguistic validation.

Conclusion: FOG-Q and NFOG-Q remain widely used, yet NFOG-Q may have limitations in detecting small clinical changes. Broader linguistic adaptations are needed, and emerging tools hold promise for multidimensional assessment. Future research should integrate subjective and objective measures for comprehensive evaluations.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42020173873).

查看原文本刊更多论文

帕金森病患者步态冻结结果测量的心理测量特性：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估评估PD患者FOG的有效工具，重点关注他们的心理测量特性、语言适应和方法质量。方法：系统检索MEDLINE， CINHAL， SCOPUS和Web of Science，遵循PRISMA-COSMIN指南。包括评估fog特定工具的效度、信度和跨文化适应性的研究。提取心理测量特性，包括内部一致性（Cronbach’s alpha）和重测信度（Intraclass Correlation Coefficient， ICC）。使用COSMIN偏倚风险检查表评估方法学质量，并对可比研究进行荟萃分析。结果：确定了六个经过验证的工具，其中fogg - q和nfogg - q是最强大的。meta分析显示内部一致性高(FOG-Q: α = 0.90；fogg - q: α = 0.87 ~ 0.89)和重测信度（FOG-Q ICC = 0.87），但异质性显著（I2 = 71.1 ~ 86.4%）。新兴工具，包括cogg - q、Ziegler测试和DYPAGS，解决了认知和双任务维度，但缺乏足够的语言验证。结论：FOG- q和nfogg - q仍然是广泛使用的FOG评估工具。然而，最近的研究结果表明，nfogg - q在检测微小的临床变化方面可能存在局限性，这突出了在临床试验中谨慎解释的必要性。仍然需要更广泛的语言和文化适应，新兴工具有望解决FOG的多维方面。未来的研究应侧重于将主观和客观措施结合起来，进行全面和全球适用的评估。注册号：PROSPERO （CRD42020173873）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.