4.6 Review

Fatigue Rating Scales Critique and Recommendations by the Movement Disorders Society Task Force on Rating Scales for Parkinson's Disease

Journal

MOVEMENT DISORDERS
Volume 25, Issue 7, Pages 805-822

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mds.22989

Keywords

fatigue; Parkinson's disease; rating scales-fatigue rating scales

Funding

  1. Teva
  2. Novartis
  3. Ingelheim-Boehringer
  4. Cephalon
  5. NIH [R01-MH06966]
  6. Valeant
  7. Epivax
  8. Glaxosmithkline
  9. Norwegian Parkinson's disease association
  10. Swedish Research Council
  11. Swedish Parkinson Foundation
  12. Skane County Council Research and Development Foundation
  13. AFA Forsakringar
  14. Faculty of Medicine at Lund University
  15. Eli Lilly
  16. Forest Research Institute
  17. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  18. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  19. Kinetics FoundationParkinson's Disease Foundation
  20. American Cancer Society
  21. Fragile X Foundation
  22. Employment-Rush University Medical Center
  23. Eisai
  24. Solvay
  25. Lundbeck
  26. Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Disease Research Center of Excellence at Johns Hopkins [P50-NS-58377]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fatigue has been shown to be a consistent and common problem in Parkinson's disease (PD) in multiple countries and cultures. It is one of the most disabling of all symptoms, including motor dysfunction, and appears early, often predating the onset of motor symptoms. Several studies of the epidemiology of fatigue have been published, often using different scales, but few on treatment. The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their psychometric properties, summarize their clinical properties, and evaluate the evidence in support of their use in clinical studies in PD. Six clinical researchers reviewed all studies published in peer reviewed journals of fatigue in PD, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data, if available. Scales were rated according to criteria provided by the MDS. A scale was recommended if it has been used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been used in PD and psychometric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable and sensitive to change in people with PD. Requiring a scale to have demonstrated sensitivity to change in PD specifically rather than in other areas in order to attain a rating of recommended differs from the use of this term in previous MDS task force scale reviews. Suggested scales failed to meet all the criteria of a recommended scale, usually the criterion of sensitivity to change in a study of PD. Scales were listed if they had been used in PD studies but had little or no psychometric data to assess. Some scales could be used both to screen for fatigue as well as to assess fatigue severity, but some were only used to assess severity. The Fatigue Severity Scale was recommended for both screening and severity rating. The Fatigue Assessment Inventory, an expanded version of the Fatigue severity Scale, is suggested for both screening and severity. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue was recommended for screening and suggested for severity. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory was suggested for screening and recommended for severity. The Parkinson Fatigue Scale was recommended for screening and suggested for severity rating. The Fatigue Severity Inventory was listed for both screening and severity. The Fatigue Impact Scale for Daily Use, an adaptation of the Fatigue Impact Scale was listed for screening and suggested for severity. Visual Analogue and Global Impression Scales are both listed for screening and severity. The committee concluded that current scales are adequate for fatigue studies in PD but that studies on sensitivity and specificity of the scales are still needed. (C) 2010 Movement Disorder Society

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available