Accuracy of MDS-UPDRS section IV for detecting motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s disease
- 2 Downloads
In a precedent paper, we validated part IV of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) for detecting motor fluctuations in Parkinson’s Disease (PD) patients using a 12-h Waking-Day Motor Assessment (WDMA) as gold standard, showing a high sensitivity (> 80%) and a lower specificity (< 45%). The aim of this study was to validate the Movement Disorder Society-UPDRS (MDS-UPDRS) part IV, especially items 4.3 and 4.5, using the same methodology.
PD patients attending the Movement Disorders Clinic at the University Hospital in Catania were consecutively enrolled in the study. A diurnal WDMA was performed to detect motor fluctuations. At each time interval, the motor impairment was evaluated using the motor section of the MDS-UPDRS. Presence or absence of motor fluctuations and the type of motor fluctuation were assessed by four blinded expert raters in movement disorders, by evaluating the graphical representations of the WDMA. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity together with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of items 4.3 and 4.5, using WDMA as gold standard.
We estimated for item 4.3 of the MDS-UPDRS a sensitivity of 74.3% (95% CI 56.7–87.5) and a specificity of 70.6% (95% CI 44–89.7), while for item 4.5, a sensitivity of 67.9% (95% CI 47.6–84.1) and a specificity of 66.7% (95% CI 44.7–84.4).
The present showed a higher specificity level for MDS-UPDRS with respect to the UPDRS, while a slightly lower sensitivity mainly for predictable OFF.
KeywordsMDS-UPDRS validation 12-h waking-day motor assessment (WDMA) Motor fluctuations Wearing-off Dyskinesia
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The study has been approved by the local ethics committee and it has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Chase TN, Mouradian MM, Engber TM (1993) Motor response complications and the function of striatal efferent systems. Neurology 43:S23–S26Google Scholar
- 3.Contrafatto D, Mostile G, Nicoletti A, Raciti L, Luca A, Dibilio V, Lanzafame S, Distefano A, Drago F, Zappia M (2011) Single photon emission computed tomography striatal asymmetry index may predict dopaminergic responsiveness in Parkinson disease. Clin Neuropharmacol 34:71–73Google Scholar
- 4.Fahn S, Elton RL, the Members of the UPDRS Development Committee (1987) Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. In: Fahn S, Marsden CD, Calne DB (eds) Recent developments in Parkinson's disease. Macmillan, London, pp 153–163Google Scholar
- 6.Goetz CG, Tilley BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P, Poewe W, Sampaio C, Stern MB, Dodel R, Dubois B, Holloway R, Jankovic J, Kulisevsky J, Lang AE, Lees A, Leurgans S, PA LW, Nyenhuis D, Olanow CW, Rascol O, Schrag A, Teresi JA, van Hilten JJ, LaPelle N, Movement Disorder Society UPDRS Revision Task Force (2008) Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord 23:2129–2170CrossRefGoogle Scholar