Dataset Information

Systematic review of severity scales and screening instruments for tics: Critique and recommendations.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Several clinician, informant, and self-report instruments for tics and associated phenomena have been developed that differ in construct, comprehensiveness, and ease of administration. OBJECTIVE:A Movement Disorders Society subcommittee aimed to rate psychometric quality of severity and screening instruments for tics and related sensory phenomena. METHODS:Following the methodology adopted by previous Movement Disorders Society subcommittee papers, a review of severity and screening instruments for tics was completed, applying a classification as "recommended," "suggested," or "listed" to each instrument. RESULTS:A total of 5 severity scales (Yale Global Tic Severity Scale, Tourette Syndrome Clinical Global Impression, Tourette's Disorder Scale, Shapiro Tourette syndrome Severity Scale, Premonitory Urges for Tics Scale) were "recommended," and 6 (Rush Video-Based Tic Rating Scale, Motor tic, Obsessions and compulsions, Vocal tic Evaluation Survey, Tourette Syndrome Global Scale, Global Tic Rating Scale, Parent Tic Questionnaire, Tourette Syndrome Symptom List) were "suggested." A total of 2 screening instruments (Motor tic, Obsession and compulsions, Vocal tic Evaluation Survey and Autism-Tics, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Other Comorbidities Inventory) were "recommended," whereas 2 others (Apter 4-questions screening and Proxy Report Questionnaire for Parents and Teachers) were "suggested." CONCLUSIONS:Our review does not support the need for developing new tic severity or screening instruments. Potential objectives of future research include developing a rating instrument targeting the full spectrum of tic-related abnormal behaviors, assessing/screening malignant forms of tic disorders, and developing patient-reported outcome measures. © 2017 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

SUBMITTER: Martino D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5482361 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review of severity scales and screening instruments for tics: Critique and recommendations.

Martino Davide D Pringsheim Tamara M TM Cavanna Andrea E AE Colosimo Carlo C Hartmann Andreas A Leckman James F JF Luo Sheng S Munchau Alexander A Goetz Christopher G CG Stebbins Glenn T GT Martinez-Martin Pablo P

Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society 20170110 3

<h4>Background</h4>Several clinician, informant, and self-report instruments for tics and associated phenomena have been developed that differ in construct, comprehensiveness, and ease of administration.<h4>Objective</h4>A Movement Disorders Society subcommittee aimed to rate psychometric quality of severity and screening instruments for tics and related sensory phenomena.<h4>Methods</h4>Following the methodology adopted by previous Movement Disorders Society subcommittee papers, a review of sev ...[more]

PMID: 28071825

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Permanent childhood hearing loss is one of the most common birth conditions associated with speech and language delay. A hearing screening can result in early detection and intervention for hearing loss. OBJECTIVES:To update and expand previous systematic reviews of economic evaluations of childhood hearing screening strategies, and explore the methodological differences. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane database, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's (CADTH) Grey matters. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Economic evaluations reporting costs and outcomes for both the intervention and comparator arms related to childhood hearing screening strategies. RESULTS:Thirty evaluations (from 29 articles) were included for review. Several methodological issues were identified, including: few evaluations reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); none estimated utilities directly from surveying children; none included disutilities and costs associated with adverse events; few included costs and outcomes that differed by severity; few included long-term estimates; none considered acquired hearing loss; some did not present incremental results; and few conducted comprehensive univariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Evaluations published post-2011 were more likely to report QALYs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as outcome measures, include long-term treatment and productivity costs, and present incremental results. LIMITATIONS:We were unable to access the economic models and, although we employed an extensive search strategy, potentially not all relevant economic evaluations were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Most economic evaluations concluded that childhood hearing screening is value for money. However, there were significant methodological limitations with the evaluations.

Project description:ImportanceMeasurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition.ObjectivesTo present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments.Evidence reviewThis systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus.FindingsOf 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.Conclusions and relevanceThe 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

Project description:Upper and lower gastrointestinal dysautonomia symptoms (GIDS)--sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation are common in Parkinson's disease (PD) and often socially as well as physically disabling for patients. Available invasive quantitative measures for assessing these symptoms and their response to therapy are time-consuming, require specialized equipment, can cause patient discomfort and present patients with risk. The Movement Disorders Society commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their clinimetric properties, and make recommendations regarding their clinical utility. Six clinical researchers and a biostatistician systematically searched the literature for scales of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data (if available). A scale was designated "Recommended" if the scale was used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been specifically used in PD reports, and clinimetric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable, and sensitive. "Suggested" scales met at least part of the above criteria, but fell short of meeting all. Based on the systematic review, scales for individual symptoms of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation were identified along with three global scales that include these symptoms in the context of assessing dysautonomia or nonmotor symptoms. Three sialorrhea scales met criteria for Suggested: Drooling Severity and Frequency Scale (DSFS), Drooling Rating Scale, and Sialorrhea Clinical Scale for PD (SCS-PD). Two dysphagia scales, the Swallowing Disturbance Questionnaire (SDQ) and Dysphagia-Specific Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL), met criteria for Suggested. Although Rome III constipation module is widely accepted in the gastroenterology community, and the earlier version from the Rome II criteria has been used in a single study of PD patients, neither met criteria for Suggested or Recommended. Among the global scales, the Scales for Outcomes in PD-Autonomic (SCOPA-AUT) and Nonmotor Symptoms Questionnaire for PD (NMSQuest) both met criteria for Recommended, and the Nonmotor Symptoms Scale (NMSS) met criteria for Suggested; however, none specifically focuses on the target gastrointestinal symptoms (sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation) of this report. A very small number of rating scales have been applied to studies of gastrointestinal-related dysautonomia in PD. Only two scales met "Recommended" criteria and neither focuses specifically on the symptoms of sialorrhea, dysphagia, and constipation. Further scale testing in PD among the scales that focus on these symptoms is warranted, and no new scales are needed until the available scales are fully tested clinimetrically.

Dataset Information

Systematic review of severity scales and screening instruments for tics: Critique and recommendations.

Publications

Systematic review of severity scales and screening instruments for tics: Critique and recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets