001     285817
005     20260402150601.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1093/braincomms/fcag100
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a pmid:41924696
|2 pmid
024 7 _ |a pmc:PMC13037577
|2 pmc
037 _ _ |a DZNE-2026-00353
041 _ _ |a English
082 _ _ |a 610
100 1 _ |a Off, Johannes
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Psychometric reliability of patient-reported visual analogue scales in subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation programming for Parkinson's disease.
260 _ _ |a [Oxford]
|c 2026
|b Oxford University Press
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1775135061_15916
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
520 _ _ |a Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation is an established therapy for Parkinson's disease, yet its programming relies heavily on subjective patient feedback. Visual analogue scales have been proposed to structure patient-reported outcome measures during programming, but their psychometric reliability has not been systematically evaluated. In this study, fifteen patients with bilateral subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation completed four structured experiments to assess the reliability of visual analogue scales: test-retest consistency, the effect of stimulation duration (15, 60, 120 s), the impact of unilateral deep brain stimulation withdrawal intervals (0, 10, 30 min), and contralateral stimulation ON versus OFF. Across all experiments, patients provided over 3000 visual analogue scale ratings, which were analyzed using correlation, regression, and Bland-Altman methods, with subgroup analyses examining motor phenotype, cognition, and disease burden. Visual analogue scale ratings demonstrated strong test-retest reliability (r = 0.70, R 2 = 0.53), with 83% of repeated scores within ±2 points. Reliability was lower in patients with tremor-onset compared to non-tremor onset (P = 0.04) but was unaffected by cognitive status or quality of life. Stimulation duration influenced absolute scores, with 15 s ratings systematically lower than 60-120 s (P < 0.001), though relative scaling was preserved. Deep brain stimulation withdrawal intervals did not affect group means but increased trial-level variability, while contralateral stimulation ON versus OFF showed modest correspondence (r = 0.31, R 2 = 0.13), suggesting hemispheric interactions in subjective perception. These findings indicate that visual analogue scale ratings provide reproducible and quantifiable feedback during subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation programming. Exploratory analyses suggest that reliability may vary with motor phenotype, stimulation duration, and bilateral context. Incorporating structured visual analogue scale feedback could enhance programming workflows, support remote care models, and inform future multimodal closed-loop deep brain stimulation strategies.
536 _ _ |a 353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353
|c POF4-353
|f POF IV
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, PubMed, , Journals: pub.dzne.de
650 _ 7 |a Parkinson’s disease (PD)
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a deep brain stimulation (DBS)
|2 Other
650 _ 7 |a visual analogue scale (VAS)
|2 Other
700 1 _ |a Scherer, Maximilian
|0 0000-0002-5280-2828
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Peschke, Sophia
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Kirschner, Angelina
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Zhang, Weidong
|b 4
700 1 _ |a Shaik, Juhi
|b 5
700 1 _ |a Dong, Jing
|b 6
700 1 _ |a Mehrkens, Jan-Hinnerk
|b 7
700 1 _ |a Kaufmann, Elisabeth
|0 0000-0002-7582-2215
|b 8
700 1 _ |a Koeglsperger, Thomas
|0 P:(DE-2719)2810825
|b 9
|e Last author
|u dzne
773 _ _ |a 10.1093/braincomms/fcag100
|g Vol. 8, no. 2, p. fcag100
|0 PERI:(DE-600)3020013-1
|n 2
|p fcag100
|t Brain communications
|v 8
|y 2026
|x 2632-1297
856 4 _ |u https://pub.dzne.de/record/285817/files/DZNE-2026-00353.pdf
|y Restricted
856 4 _ |u https://pub.dzne.de/record/285817/files/DZNE-2026-00353.pdf?subformat=pdfa
|x pdfa
|y Restricted
910 1 _ |a Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen
|0 I:(DE-588)1065079516
|k DZNE
|b 9
|6 P:(DE-2719)2810825
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Gesundheit
|l Neurodegenerative Diseases
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-350
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF4
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF4-300
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|v Clinical and Health Care Research
|x 0
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
|b BRAIN COMMUN : 2022
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0501
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ Seal
|d 2024-04-03T10:36:45Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0500
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ
|d 2024-04-03T10:36:45Z
915 _ _ |a Peer Review
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0030
|2 StatID
|b DOAJ : Anonymous peer review
|d 2024-04-03T10:36:45Z
915 _ _ |a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY (No Version)
|0 LIC:(DE-HGF)CCBYNV
|2 V:(DE-HGF)
|b DOAJ
|d 2024-04-03T10:36:45Z
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0112
|2 StatID
|b Emerging Sources Citation Index
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a IF < 5
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)9900
|2 StatID
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a Article Processing Charges
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0561
|2 StatID
|d 2024-12-20
915 _ _ |a Fees
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0700
|2 StatID
|d 2024-12-20
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-2719)1111015
|k Clinical Research (Munich)
|l Clinical Research (Munich)
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a EDITORS
980 _ _ |a VDBINPRINT
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-2719)1111015
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21