Essential Maintenance: All Authorea-powered sites will be offline 9am-10am EDT Tuesday 28 May
and 11pm-1am EDT Tuesday 28-Wednesday 29 May. We apologise for any inconvenience.

loading page

Modelling item scores of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale for greater trial efficiency
  • +2
  • Yucheng Sheng,
  • Xuan Zhou,
  • Shuying Yang,
  • Peiming Ma,
  • Chao Chen
Yucheng Sheng

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Xuan Zhou
Author Profile
Shuying Yang
Author Profile
Peiming Ma
Author Profile


Aim. The multi-part Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale is the standard instrument in clinical trials. A sum of scores for all items in one or more parts of the instrument is usually analyzed. Without accounting for relative importance of individual items, this sum of scores conceivably does not optimize the power of the instrument. The aim was to compare the ability to detect drug effect in slowing down motor function deterioration, as measured by Part III of the Scale - motor examinations - between the item scores and the sum of scores. Methods. We used data from 423 patients in a Parkinson’s disease progression trial to estimate the symptom severity by item response modelling; modelled symptom progression using the severity and the sum of scores; and conducted simulations to compare the sensitivity of detecting a broad range of hypothetical drug effects on progression using the severity and the sum of scores. Results. The severity endpoint was far more sensitive than the sum of scores for detecting treatment effects, e.g., requiring 280 versus 570 patients per arm to achieve 60% Probability of Success for detecting a range of potential effects in a 2-year trial. Items related to the left side of the body were most informative; and the domain relevance of tremor items was questionable. Conclusion. This analysis generated clear evidence that longitudinal modelling of item scores can enhance trial efficiency and success. It also prompted the needs for a consensus on the placement of the tremor items in the instrument.
30 Jun 2020Submitted to British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
01 Jul 2020Submission Checks Completed
01 Jul 2020Assigned to Editor
02 Jul 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
29 Jul 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
31 Jul 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Major
30 Nov 20201st Revision Received
01 Dec 2020Submission Checks Completed
01 Dec 2020Assigned to Editor
01 Dec 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
06 Dec 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Feb 2021Editorial Decision: Accept