Taniguchi Seira, Yamamoto Ariko
Department of Neurology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan.
Division of ward management, Tekiju Rehabilitation Hospital, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.
Jpn J Compr Rehabil Sci. 2023 Mar 31;14:16-25. doi: 10.11336/jjcrs.14.16. eCollection 2023.
Taniguchi S, Yamamoto A. Measurement instruments to assess basic functional mobility in Parkinson's Disease: A systematic review of clinimetric properties and feasibility for use in clinical practice. Jpn J Compr Rehabil Sci 2023; 14: 16-25.
To systematically review the evaluation of clinimetric properties and feasibility of the "Modified Parkinson Activity Scale (M-PAS)" and the "Lindop Parkinson's Disease Mobility Assessment (LPA)," which are Parkinson's Disease (PD)-specific measurement instruments to assess basic functional mobility, and to discuss their considerations for use in clinical practice.
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A risk of bias assessment was also performed.
Eleven studies were included: five studies used M-PAS (45%), five studies used LPA (45%), and one study used M-PAS and LPA (13%). The risk of bias was low for all evaluated studies.
M-PAS and LPA showed adequate reliability, validity, and responsiveness in detecting intervention changes. M-PAS has more detailed qualitative scoring options, a lack of ceiling effect, and can be used by a non-expert in PD.In contrast, the drawback of M-PAS is that it is time-consuming to apply in everyday clinical practice. On the other hand, LPA with greater simplicity may lead to lower burdens for both patients and raters in situations with strict time limitations. Further research is required to identify new resources.
谷口史、山本晃。帕金森病基本功能活动能力评估测量工具：临床测量特性及临床应用可行性的系统评价。《日本综合康复科学杂志》2023年；14卷：16 - 25页。
系统评价“改良帕金森活动量表（M - PAS）”和“林多帕金森病活动能力评估量表（LPA）”的临床测量特性及可行性，这两种量表是用于评估帕金森病（PD）基本功能活动能力的特定测量工具，并探讨其在临床实践中的应用考量。
按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南进行系统评价。同时进行了偏倚风险评估。
纳入11项研究：5项研究使用M - PAS（45%），5项研究使用LPA（45%），1项研究同时使用M - PAS和LPA（13%）。所有评估研究的偏倚风险均较低。
M - PAS和LPA在检测干预变化方面显示出足够的可靠性、有效性和反应性。M - PAS具有更详细的定性评分选项，不存在天花板效应，且非帕金森病专家也可使用。相比之下，M - PAS的缺点是在日常临床实践中应用耗时。另一方面，LPA更简单，在时间限制严格的情况下可能会减轻患者和评估者的负担。需要进一步研究以确定新的资源。
