ArticleAnnals of Indian Academy of Neurology
Modification and Validation of a Diagnostic Questionnaire for Restless Legs Syndrome: Modified-Restless Legs Syndrome Diagnostic Questionnaire (m-RLS-DQ).
Article in Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research on sleep disorders in patients with mental illness: A review of Indian studies.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
- A systematic compilation of rating scales developed, translated, and adapted in India.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2024Review
- Restless Legs Syndrome- Do we Need a Modified Diagnostic Questionnaire for Accurate Diagnosis?Annals of Indian Academy of NeurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic questionnaire that are available for restless legs syndrome does not include items related to RLS mimics and, hence, increases chances of false positive cases. This study aimed at modification and validation of RLS-diagnostic Questionnaire. Methods: During modification, additional items were identified, developed, and subjected to evaluation by experts. Experts were requested to validate the content of each item. Based on their responses, content validity indices (average and universal agreement) were calculated. It was then translated to Hindi and validated in a clinical population that included patients with RLS, somatic symptoms disorder, anxiety, other RLS mimics, and osteoarthritis. In addition, a group of healthy controls was also included. Face, concurrent, and discriminant validities were calculated. Results: Among 209 subjects, nearly 40 subjects had clinical diagnosis of RLS, osteoarthritis, somatic-symptoms-disorder, and anxiety disorder, each. In addition, 16 patients had other RLS mimics (akathisia, varicose veins, BFS, leg-cramps, chronic insomnia) and 30 were healthy controls. After multiple revisions, content validity indices achieved a score of 1 for m-RLS-DQ. Sensitivity and specificity of m-RLS-DQ v. 1.4 for the diagnosis of RLS were 94.9% and 94.1%, respectively. For the diagnosis of RLS, PPV was 78.7%, and NPV was 98.7% with an accuracy of 94.3%. Less than one fourth of participants having chronic insomnia, somatic symptoms disorder, anxiety disorder, and knee osteoarthritis were found to be false positive on m-RLS-DQ; however, none of the healthy controls were found positive on m-RLS-DQ. Concurrent validity with clinical diagnosis of RLS was 0.83 ( Conclusion: m-RLS-DQ is a valid instrument with acceptable psychometric properties, which can be used for the screening as well as diagnosis of RLS in clinical practice and research studies.
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.