Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 194

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials

Hauser, Robert A., Deckers, Frieda, Lehert, Philippe·2004·Movement Disorders

Abstract

We provide further validation of a Parkinson's disease (PD) home diary and explore implications for practical use in clinical trials. We previously developed and published a home PD diary that includes the categories ASLEEP, off, on without dyskinesia, on with nontroublesome dyskinesia, and on with troublesome dyskinesia [Hauser et al., J Clin Neuropharmacol 2000;23:75–81] and demonstrated that patients generally consider off time and on time with troublesome dyskinesia “bad time” and on time without dyskinesia or with nontroublesome dyskinesia “good time”. We suggested that that on time without dyskinesia or with nontroublesome dyskinesia would be an appropriate outcome measure in clinical trials of advanced PD patients. In the current study, PD patients with motor fluctuations and dyskinesia (present more than 25% of the awake day and at least moderately disabling) completed daily diaries on 3 consecutive days in each of 2 consecutive weeks. In addition, patients provided responses to five questions regarding dyskinesia and their motor response through the day on visual analog scales (VAS). Three hundred two patients from 10 countries participated. Eighty‐three percent (n = 252) completed six diaries without missing or duplicate entries. Seventy‐six percent of the missing or duplicate entries occurred after Day 3. Mean percent of the awake day on without dyskinesia or with nontroublesome dyskinesia (“good on”, ONG%) was observed to be very stable over time (repeated measure analysis of variance, P = 0.99). Coefficients of reliability as calculated by Cronbach's α were as follows: 2 days, r = 0.806; 3 days, r = 0.868; 4 days, r = 0.918; 5 days, r = 0.934; 6 days, r = 0.946. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated to be 10.75%. VAS responses to the question, “How much of the day today did you experience a good response?” more strongly correlated with ONG% (0.41) than ON% (0.24). The diary appears to be sufficiently simple and feasible. Test–retest reliability was good, and reliability increased with increasing number of diary days but compliance diminished beyond 3 days. Good on time (ONG = on time without dyskinesia or with nontroublesome dyskinesia) most strongly correlated with patients' perceived duration of a good response through the day and is an important outcome variable. © 2004 Movement Disorder Society

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mds.20248

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 194

Metadata

Authors
Hauser, R. A., Deckers, F., & Lehert, P.
Venue
Movement Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-10-27
Volume
19
Issue
12
Pages
1409-1413
ISSN
  • 0885-3185 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8257
OpenAlex
W1983802226
Cited by
194
References
0
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mds.20248
The paper
Hauser, R. A., Deckers, F., & Lehert, P. (2004). Parkinson's disease home diary: Further validation and implications for clinical trials. Movement Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.20248

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.