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

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Suzanne Reeves, Josef Mahdi, Matthew Appleby, Olga Zubko, Teresa Lee, Julie A Barber, Kathy Y Liu, John-Paul Taylor, Emily J Henderson, Anette Schrag, Robert Howard, Rimona S Weil
{"title":"Minimal clinically important differences for treatment of hallucinations in Parkinson's disease and dementia with Lewy bodies.","authors":"Suzanne Reeves, Josef Mahdi, Matthew Appleby, Olga Zubko, Teresa Lee, Julie A Barber, Kathy Y Liu, John-Paul Taylor, Emily J Henderson, Anette Schrag, Robert Howard, Rimona S Weil","doi":"10.1017/S0033291725000534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":20891,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Medicine","volume":"55 ","pages":"e93"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725000534","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

背景:幻觉是帕金森病(PD)常见的令人痛苦的症状。临床试验中的治疗反应是通过有效问卷进行测量的,包括阳性症状-幻觉评估量表(SAPS-H)和迈阿密大学帕金森病幻觉问卷(UM-PDHQ)。这两种量表的最小临床重要差异(MCID)均未确定。本研究旨在采用基于共识的方法和统计方法估算 SAPS-H 和 UM-PDHQ 的 MCID 范围:方法:采用德尔菲调查法征求研究人员、临床医生和有生活经验者的意见。我们将共识定义为同意率≥75%。统计方法使用了 "昂丹司琼治疗帕金森幻觉试验"(TOP HAT,NCT04167813)中前 100 名帕金森病参与者的盲法数据。基于分布的方法将 MCID 定义为 12 周时与基线相比评分变化标准差的 0.5。基于锚的方法将 MCID 定义为临床总体印象-严重程度量表(CGI-S)改善 1 分所对应的平均分数变化:51名研究人员和临床医生参与了三轮德尔菲调查,并就两个量表的MCID均为2分达成了共识。16 位具有生活经验的专家也达成了同样的共识。SAPS-H的分布定义MCID为2.6分,UM-PDHQ为1.3分,而基于锚的MCID分别为2.1分和1.3分:我们采用多种方法进行三角测量,得出了两种评分量表的 MCID 估计值范围,SAPS-H 为 2 至 2.7 分,UM-PDHQ 为 1.3 至 2 分。
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
Psychological Medicine
Psychological Medicine 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
711
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Now in its fifth decade of publication, Psychological Medicine is a leading international journal in the fields of psychiatry, related aspects of psychology and basic sciences. From 2014, there are 16 issues a year, each featuring original articles reporting key research being undertaken worldwide, together with shorter editorials by distinguished scholars and an important book review section. The journal''s success is clearly demonstrated by a consistently high impact factor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信