Minimal clinically important difference of the King’s Parkinson’s disease Pain Scale

Abstract

Objective

Pain is a common and debilitating symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD) and has no specific treatment. King's Parkinson's disease Pain Scale (KPPS) is the only specific scale for pain measurement in PD with established psychometric properties. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of KPPS, an important parameter for the design and interpretation of therapeutic interventions, has not yet been measured. The aim of our study was to assess the MCID of KPPS.

Methods

Two hundred and seven PD patients were evaluated by KPPS before and after receiving the intervention. The Clinical Global Impression of Improvement Scale was used as an anchor, and a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the optimal MCID cut-off point for KPPS. The distribution-based approach applied one-third standard deviation (SD), 0.5 SD, and one standard error of measurement (SEM) of the total score of KPPS to determine the MCID.

Results

The MCID achieved from the ROC curve was 3 points (sensitivity: 74.4%; specificity: 81.9%). For the distribution-based method, the MCIDs corresponding to 0.3 SD, 0.5 SD, and one SEM were 5.65, 9.41, and 2.54 points, respectively.

Conclusion

KPPS is a valid scale for measuring pain in PD with demonstrable MCID.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

• The King's Parkinson's disease Pain Scale (KPPS) is a valid scale for measuring pain in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) with demonstrable minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

• The MCID obtained in the current study will assist clinicians and researchers when interpreting KPPS change score to determine clinically meaningful changes of pain in both PD progression and response to interventions.

Keywords:

• Pain
• Parkinson's disease
• Minimal clinically important difference
• Anchor-based
• Distribution-based

Acknowledgments

We appreciate our patients who kindly accepted to participate in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).