Jump to content

Talk:Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fox

[edit]

I don't see any reason to single out Michael J. Fox in this article. He may be a famous individual diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, but that hardly warrants use of his name here when no name is required to be identified, and indeed, the "fact" being associated with him is actually speculation about what "would have been" true. 206.57.41.114 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When was this scale developed?

[edit]

The article talks about when the scale was revised, but does not seem to mention when (or how) it was developed in the first place (or by whom). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progression of Parkinson's Disease

[edit]

I have searched for information on this subject and have not found anything that a layman could use to understand what the sequential effects of the disease might be - normally - is such a term has any validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innovate0 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MDS-UPDRS score range

[edit]

I cannot find the score ranges for the scale and its 4 parts. Sources I found agree on score for Parts I (52 = 13 [items] * 4 [rating]), II (52 = 13*4), and IV (6 = 6*4) but not for part III. Indeed, Part III has 18 items but many of them have subitems, so I assume some scientists take the sum of the scores of these subitems while others average them? In any case, there must be somewhere "official" guidelines about how to score on the MDS-UPDRS for Part III?

I assume that the correct range for Part III is 132 (33 * 4) because there are a total of 33 subitems, each rated on a scale from 0 to 4. This would give a score range of 0–260 (52+52+132+24) for the whole MDS-UPDRS. Do we have a RS confirming this? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And here the total is 200... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I modified based on what I think made sense: the source giving 56 for Part III also gave 272 as the total (doesn't add up) and the one giving 108 was I assume using the original UPDRS scale (which indeed scores its Part III from 0 to 108).
So we now have something consistent and based on RS. I hope it's correct... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]