Reeves, Suzanne; Mahdi, Josef; Appleby, Matthew; Zubko, Olga; Lee, Teresa; Barber, Julie A; Liu, Kathy Y; ... Hallucinations working group; + view all Reeves, Suzanne; Mahdi, Josef; Appleby, Matthew; Zubko, Olga; Lee, Teresa; Barber, Julie A; Liu, Kathy Y; Taylor, John-Paul; Henderson, Emily J; Schrag, Anette; Howard, Robert; Weil, Rimona S; Hallucinations working group; - view fewer (2025) Minimal clinically important differences for treatment of hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Psychological Medicine (In press).

	Text Figure 1.jpg - Accepted Version Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (46kB)
	Text Reeves_Manuscript V1 100125.pdf Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (407kB)
	Text Reeves_Table 1 Delphi survey expert clinicians.pdf Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (134kB)
	Text Reeves_Table 2 case scenarios expert researchers.pdf Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (157kB)
	Text Reeves_Table 3 Case scenarios Round 3.pdf Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (139kB)
	Text Reeves_Table 4 Anchor and distribution based approaches.pdf Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (132kB)
	Text Reeves_CHANGES TO Supplementary Information 1_Hallucinations working group names.pdf Access restricted to UCL open access staff until 27 August 2025. Download (99kB)

Abstract

Background: Hallucinations are common and distressing symptoms in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Treatment response in clinical trials are measured using validated questionnaires, including the Scale for Assessment of Positive Symptoms-Hallucinations (SAPS-H) and University of Miami PD Hallucinations Questionnaire (UM-PDHQ). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) has not been determined for either scale. This study aimed to estimate a range of MCIDs for SAPS-H and UM-PDHQ, using both consensus-based and statistical approaches. Methods: A Delphi survey was used to seek opinions of researchers, clinicians and people with lived experience. We defined consensus as agreement ≥75%. Statistical approaches used blinded data from the first 100 PD participants in the Trial for Ondansetron as Parkinson’s Hallucinations Treatment (TOP HAT, NCT04167813). The distribution-based approach defined the MCID as 0.5 of the standard deviation of change in scores from baseline at 12 weeks. The anchor-based approach defined the MCID as the average change in scores corresponding to a 1-point improvement in clinical global impression-severity scale (CGI-S). Results: Fifty-one researchers and clinicians contributed to three rounds of the Delphi survey and reached consensus that the MCID was 2 points on both scales. Sixteen experts with lived experience reached the same consensus. Distribution-defined MCIDs were 2.6 points for SAPS-H and 1.3 points for UM-PDHQ, whereas anchor-based MCIDs were 2.1 and 1.3 points, respectively. Conclusions: We used triangulation from multiple methodologies to derive the range of MCID estimates for the two rating scales, which was between 2 to 2.7 points for SAPS-H and 1.3 to 2 points for UM-PDHQ.

Downloads since deposit

Loading...

8Downloads

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Loading...

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Loading...

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as JSONCSVXML

Loading...

Archive Staff Only

View Item