Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Parkinsons Dis. 2019;9(4):653-664. doi: 10.3233/JPD-191619.
Individuals experiencing apathy in Parkinson's disease (PD) have a lack of emotion and motivation. Apathy often overlaps with comorbidities such as depression, and is sometimes difficult to detect.
To examine diagnostic accuracy of apathy-screening tools compared with a gold standard (clinician diagnosis) among adult outpatients with PD.
A systematic review was conducted. Six research databases were searched to May 23, 2018. Diagnostic accuracy measures, including sensitivity and specificity were gathered.
1,007 full-text articles were reviewed with seven full-text articles included. The gold standard was considered a clinician diagnosis as apathy is not defined in the DSM/ICD. Diagnostic accuracy measures were reported for the Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) both informant- and observer-rated, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Apathy Scale (AS), Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES), Non-Motor Symptoms Questionnaire (NMS-Q), and Dimensional Apathy Scale (DAS). The AES had the best reported sensitivity and specificity values, both 90%. The AS had the highest reported specificity at 100%, with 66% sensitivity. Pooled prevalence of apathy was 29.1% (95% CI 21.5%-36.6%).
While 18 screening tools exist to screen for apathy in PD, only six have been validated against clinician diagnosis. The AES had the highest reported sensitivity and specificity and is a brief, easy to use tool. The AS was designed specifically for use in PD populations and has the highest reported specificity. Future research should focus on the development of an accepted gold standard, to further understand accuracy measures of all available apathy screening tools.
帕金森病(PD)患者表现出冷漠,缺乏情感和动力。冷漠常与抑郁等共病重叠,有时难以察觉。
比较冷漠筛查工具与金标准(临床医生诊断)在成年 PD 门诊患者中的诊断准确性。
进行了系统评价。从 2018 年 5 月 23 日起,对六个研究数据库进行了搜索。收集了诊断准确性指标,包括敏感性和特异性。
共审查了 1007 篇全文文章,其中包括 7 篇全文文章。金标准被认为是临床医生的诊断,因为冷漠在 DSM/ICD 中没有定义。报告了 Lille 冷漠评定量表(LARS)的观察者和报告者评定、统一帕金森病评定量表(UPDRS)、冷漠量表(AS)、冷漠评定量表(AES)、非运动症状问卷(NMS-Q)和维度冷漠量表(DAS)的诊断准确性指标。AES 的报告敏感性和特异性值最好,均为 90%。AS 的报告特异性最高为 100%,敏感性为 66%。冷漠的总患病率为 29.1%(95%CI 21.5%-36.6%)。
虽然有 18 种工具可用于筛查 PD 中的冷漠,但只有 6 种工具经过了临床医生诊断的验证。AES 的报告敏感性和特异性最高,是一种简单易用的工具。AS 专为 PD 人群设计,具有最高的报告特异性。未来的研究应集中于开发公认的金标准,以进一步了解所有可用的冷漠筛查工具的准确性指标。