ArticleNutrients2026
Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Parkinson's Disease.
Article in Nutrients, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Alcohol Intake and Parkinson Symptoms Following Diagnosis.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Patient-Reported Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease (PRO-PD) scale is a 35-item visual analog measure designed to quantify symptom severity across motor and non-motor domains. Developed as a continuous, patient-centered outcome, PRO-PD captures patient-perceived change over time and is suitable for remote longitudinal assessment. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of PRO-PD across two independent datasets, including reliability, validity, factor structure, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and assessed its relevance to nutrition- and lifestyle-focused research.
methodsConvergent validity was evaluated in a cross-sectional clinical dataset (
resultsPRO-PD demonstrated strong convergent validity with established clinical measures, excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96) for Small Data and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.947-0.951) for Big Data"), and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.78 overall; 0.89 at 6 months). Confirmatory testing of a previously proposed eight-factor structure showed suboptimal fit, leading to a parsimonious four-factor solution (Neurobehavioral, Autonomic, Motor, Mood/Motivation) explaining 47.6% of variance. PRO-PD scores increased significantly with advancing disease duration and stage. MCID thresholds were +53.5 points for worsening and -78.5 points for improvement (AUC = 0.64 for worsened vs. not worsened; AUC = 0.71 for improved vs. worsened), with greater sensitivity for detecting deterioration than improvement. PRO-PD scores demonstrated sensitivity to patient-perceived symptom change over time, supporting its utility for longitudinal monitoring and potential application in lifestyle-focused intervention research.
conclusionsThese findings support PRO-PD as a psychometrically robust outcome measure that can be completed remotely without trained administrators.
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.