Martino Davide, Pringsheim Tamara M, Cavanna Andrea E, Colosimo Carlo, Hartmann Andreas, Leckman James F, Luo Sheng, Munchau Alexander, Goetz Christopher G, Stebbins Glenn T, Martinez-Martin Pablo
International Parkinson's Centre of Excellence, King's College and King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich, Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust, London, UK.
Mov Disord. 2017 Mar;32(3):467-473. doi: 10.1002/mds.26891. Epub 2017 Jan 10.
Several clinician, informant, and self-report instruments for tics and associated phenomena have been developed that differ in construct, comprehensiveness, and ease of administration.
A Movement Disorders Society subcommittee aimed to rate psychometric quality of severity and screening instruments for tics and related sensory phenomena.
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.
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."
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.
已经开发了几种用于评估抽动及相关现象的临床医生报告、知情者报告和自我报告工具,这些工具在结构、全面性和易用性方面存在差异。
运动障碍协会的一个小组委员会旨在对抽动及相关感觉现象的严重程度评估工具和筛查工具的心理测量质量进行评级。
遵循运动障碍协会先前小组委员会论文采用的方法,完成了对抽动严重程度评估工具和筛查工具的综述,为每个工具应用“推荐”“建议”或“列出”的分类。
共有5个严重程度量表(耶鲁全球抽动严重程度量表、抽动秽语综合征临床总体印象、抽动秽语障碍量表、夏皮罗抽动秽语综合征严重程度量表、抽动预兆冲动量表)被“推荐”,6个(拉什视频抽动评定量表、运动性抽动、强迫观念和强迫行为、发声性抽动评估调查、抽动秽语综合征全球量表、全球抽动评定量表、家长抽动问卷、抽动秽语综合征症状清单)被“建议”。共有2个筛查工具(运动性抽动、强迫观念和强迫行为、发声性抽动评估调查以及自闭症-抽动、注意力缺陷/多动障碍和其他共病量表)被“推荐”,另外2个(阿普特4问题筛查以及家长和教师代理报告问卷)被“建议”。
我们的综述不支持开发新的抽动严重程度评估或筛查工具的必要性。未来研究的潜在目标包括开发一种针对抽动相关异常行为全谱的评定工具、评估/筛查抽动障碍的恶性形式以及开发患者报告的结局指标。©2017国际帕金森病和运动障碍协会。