ReviewParkinson's disease2018
Clinimetrics of the 9- and 19-Item Wearing-Off Questionnaire: A Systematic Review.
Review in Parkinson's disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Outcome Assessments in Parkinson's Disease: A Scoping Review of Current Rating Scales and Future Needs.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Average Daily Steps Measured Through a Consumer Smartwatch in People With Mild-to-Moderate Parkinson Disease: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Non-Motor Fluctuations in Parkinson's Disease: Underdiagnosed Yet Important.Journal of movement disorders · 2025Article
- Validity and Reliability of the Korean Versions of the 9- and 19-Item Wearing-Off Questionnaires in Parkinson's Disease.Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Article
- Comment on: The Most Bothersome Aspects of Off Periods Reported by Individuals with Parkinson's Disease.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2020Article
- A Supervised Machine Learning Approach to Detect the On/Off State in Parkinson's Disease Using Wearable Based Gait Signals.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Philippine translation and validation of the Wearing-off Questionnaire-19.Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) with dopaminergic therapy improves functionality and quality of life. However, as the disease progresses, the wearing-off phenomenon develops, which necessitates complex posology adjustment or adjuvant therapy. This phenomenon may not be well recognized, especially if it is mild or involves nonmotor symptoms. Questionnaires were developed to improve the recognition of the wearing-off phenomenon. The questionnaires consist of a list of symptoms that patients must check if they have and if the symptoms improve with medication. A recent review by the Movement Disorder Society suggested the 19-item (WOQ-19) and 9-item (WOQ-9) questionnaires as screening tools for the wearing-off phenomenon. However, there has not been a systematic review to assess the questionnaires' clinimetric properties, such as sensitivity, specificity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. We conducted an extensive search for studies using these two tools. We identified 3 studies using WOQ-19 and 5 studies using WOQ-9. Both questionnaires seem to have good sensitivity (0.81-1). WOQ-19 has variable specificity (0.39-0.8), depending on the number of positive items, while WOQ-9 lacks specificity (0.1-0.69). Only one study using WOQ-19 reported test-retest, and only two studies reported responsiveness. Thus, this report describes the first independent systematic review to exam quantitatively the clinimetric properties of these two questionnaires.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.