ArticleArquivos de neuro-psiquiatria2022
A holistic approach to evaluating Parkinson's disease, using the Delphi method: a linear evaluation index.
Article in Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundParkinson's disease (PD) is a chronic disease that presents a multitude of symptoms, with symptoms of both motor and nonmotor nature. The Delphi method is widely used to create consensuses among experts in a field of knowledge.
objectiveIn order to reach a consensus on the values that should be assigned to the different motor and nonmotor manifestations of Parkinson's disease, a linear evaluation index (LEI) was created. Subsequently, the metric properties of this index were studied.
methods120 consecutive patients with a Parkinson's diagnosis were chosen in accordance with the UKPDSBB criteria. The Delphi method was used to reach a consensus among experts regarding the values of each of the manifestations included. Subsequently, the following attributes were analyzed: quality and acceptability of the data; reliability, in terms of internal consistency, reliability index, Cronbach's alpha and standard error of measurement; and validity, in terms of convergent validity and validity for known groups.
resultsTwenty-five experts participated. The importance factor did not differ between the first round and the second round (chi-square test). We analyzed the responses that assigned percentage values to the 10 dimensions of the LEI. Both in the first and in the second round, the values of the scattering coefficient Vr were always close to 0. The homogeneity index was 0.36; the corrected-item total correlation values ranged from 0.02 to 0.7; Cronbach's α was 0.69; and the SEM was 4.23 (55.1%).
conclusionsThe LEI was obtained through rigorous recommended methodology. The results showed adequate metric properties.
Indexed as
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.