ArticleBMC neurology2025
Validation of the Dutch version of the King's Parkinson's disease pain scale.
Article in BMC neurology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD)is often underdiagnosed and, therefore, undertreated. The King's Parkinson's Pain Scale (KPPS) is one of the few validated tools specifically designed to assess pain in patients with Parkinson's disease but lacks a Dutch version. This study aims to validate the KPPS for patients in the Netherlands and to examine which cognitive functions are related to the comprehension of the KPPS.
methodsThe KPPS was translated into Dutch and validated in 70 patients with PD through internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity testing. Patients had been diagnosed with PD for an average of 5.65 years. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).
resultsThe Dutch KPPS showed acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.69), though its factor structure differed from the original. Convergent validity was confirmed via significant correlations with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while discriminant validity was supported through correlations with the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) and EQ-5D-3 L. Verbal memory and abstract thinking showed a tendency toward significance in their association with pain scores.
conclusionThe Dutch KPPS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pain in Dutch patients with PD, though its structure differs from the original. These differences may reflect variability in pain perception or classification, highlighting the need for further research integrating the PD-PCS framework to refine pain assessment in PD.
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.