Validation of the restless legs syndrome screening questionnaire (RLSSQ) (original) (raw)

Abstract

sparkles

AI

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a prevalent sensorimotor disorder characterized by an uncontrollable urge to move the legs, often resulting in significant sleep disturbances. A validated screening questionnaire (RLSSQ) was developed to facilitate diagnosis in clinical and epidemiological settings, covering key diagnostic criteria. The study validated the RLSSQ with a significant difference in scores between RLS patients and controls, demonstrating high sensitivity (97.9%) and specificity (96.2%). The results support the use of RLSSQ as an effective diagnostic tool for RLS.

Figures (3)

Tab. 3 Test characteristics of single items on the restless legs syndrome (RLS) screening questionnaire (RLSSQ; comparison of RLS positives vs. normal controls) dingly, 97% of the patients were correct- ly diagnosed. The AUC was 0.995+0.13 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.992-0.999; compared with the mini- mum possible score of 0.5, the difference was highly significant (p<o.0005). There were no differences in the mean RLSSQ scores between untreated (n=75) and tre- ated RLS patients (8.57+0.98 points ver- sus 8.52+0.95 points, p=0.798). In additi- on, we found a positive Spearman's corre- lation between the RLSSQ total score and the duration of RLS (r=0.223, p=0.0005) and a nonsignificant correlation with age (r=0.013, P=0.405). of 95.4% and a specificity of 100% when a positive answer to questions 1-5 was con- sidered a positive test result. Accordingly, 97% of the patients were correctly diagno- sed. The internal consistency of the short- form RLSSQ resulted in a Cronbach’ al- pha of 0.95. The corrected correlations were 0.752 (item 1), 0.865 (item 2), 0.909 (item 3), 0.891 (item 4), and 0.898 (item 5), with p<o.0005 for all items. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the short form was 0.986, with a 95% CI of 0.986-0.991. Factor analysis of the short form reve- aled a single factor with an eigenvalue >1, which explains 83% of the variance. The fact that 83% of the variance is explained by the factor suggests a very high internal validity. The sum score of the short form did not significantly correlate with disease duration (r=0.055, p=0.347).

Tab. 3 Test characteristics of single items on the restless legs syndrome (RLS) screening questionnaire (RLSSQ; comparison of RLS positives vs. normal controls) dingly, 97% of the patients were correct- ly diagnosed. The AUC was 0.995+0.13 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.992-0.999; compared with the mini- mum possible score of 0.5, the difference was highly significant (p<o.0005). There were no differences in the mean RLSSQ scores between untreated (n=75) and tre- ated RLS patients (8.57+0.98 points ver- sus 8.52+0.95 points, p=0.798). In additi- on, we found a positive Spearman's corre- lation between the RLSSQ total score and the duration of RLS (r=0.223, p=0.0005) and a nonsignificant correlation with age (r=0.013, P=0.405). of 95.4% and a specificity of 100% when a positive answer to questions 1-5 was con- sidered a positive test result. Accordingly, 97% of the patients were correctly diagno- sed. The internal consistency of the short- form RLSSQ resulted in a Cronbach’ al- pha of 0.95. The corrected correlations were 0.752 (item 1), 0.865 (item 2), 0.909 (item 3), 0.891 (item 4), and 0.898 (item 5), with p<o.0005 for all items. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the short form was 0.986, with a 95% CI of 0.986-0.991. Factor analysis of the short form reve- aled a single factor with an eigenvalue >1, which explains 83% of the variance. The fact that 83% of the variance is explained by the factor suggests a very high internal validity. The sum score of the short form did not significantly correlate with disease duration (r=0.055, p=0.347).

showed a high sensitivity of 95.4% and 97.3%, respectively. Of the RLS patients, only six gave a negative answer to ques- tion 1, but none gave a negative answer to question 2. One RLS patient answered in the negative to question 3 (he additionally had a pain syndrome that was also present when moving); three patients answered in the negative to question 4 (in all of them, the severity of RLS symptoms at night and during the day had slowly converged, but the patients had not read the question ca- refully enough: “or were your symptoms previously more pronounced ...”); and two patients gave false negative answers to question 5 (referring to only temporary relief by movement). Py eh 4 ea ae sory symptoms of different kinds, assess- ment of items 1-5 is more appropriate. a specificity of 98.3%. The sensitivities of both versions were also very similar, with 97.9% for the 10-item version versus 95.4% for the short form.

showed a high sensitivity of 95.4% and 97.3%, respectively. Of the RLS patients, only six gave a negative answer to ques- tion 1, but none gave a negative answer to question 2. One RLS patient answered in the negative to question 3 (he additionally had a pain syndrome that was also present when moving); three patients answered in the negative to question 4 (in all of them, the severity of RLS symptoms at night and during the day had slowly converged, but the patients had not read the question ca- refully enough: “or were your symptoms previously more pronounced ...”); and two patients gave false negative answers to question 5 (referring to only temporary relief by movement). Py eh 4 ea ae sory symptoms of different kinds, assess- ment of items 1-5 is more appropriate. a specificity of 98.3%. The sensitivities of both versions were also very similar, with 97.9% for the 10-item version versus 95.4% for the short form.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (11)

  1. Allen R, Picchietti D, Hening W et al (2003) Rest- less legs syndrome: diagnostic criteria, special con- siderations, and epidemiology. A report from the restless legs syndrome diagnosis and epidemiolo- gy workshop at the National Institutes of Health. Sleep Med 4:101-119
  2. Allen RP, Walters AS, Montplaisir J et al (2005) Restless legs syndrome prevalence and impact: REST general population study. Arch Intern Med 165(11):1286-1292
  3. Auger C, Montplaisir J, Duquette P (205) Increased frequency of restless legs syndrome in a French- Canadian population with multiple sclerosis. Neu- rology 65:1652-1653
  4. Bergmann L, Behrens M, Dietl M, Banik N (2006) Prävalenz und Charakterisierung des Restless- Legs-Syndroms in deutschen Allgemeinarztpra- xen. Munch Med Wochenschr 148:107-113
  5. Ferri R, Lanuzza B, Cosentino FII et al (2006) A sing- le question for the rapid screening of restless legs syndrome in the neurological clinical practice. Eur J Neurol 14:1016-1021
  6. Hening W, Walters AS, Allen RP et al (2004) Impact, diagnosis and treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in a primary care population: the REST (RLS epidemiology, symptoms, and treatment) primary care study. Sleep Med 5:237-246
  7. Lesage S, Hening WA (2004) The restless legs syn- drome and periodic limb movement disorder: a re- view of management. Sem Neurol 24(3):249-259
  8. Rijsman R, Neven AK, Graffelman W et al (2004) Epidemiology of restless legs in the Netherlands. Eur J Neurol 11:607-611
  9. Stiasny-Kolster K, Kohnen R, Möller JC, Oertel WH (2006) Validation of the "L-DOPA test" for diagnosis of restless legs syndrome. Mov Disord 21(9):1333- 1339
  10. Walters AS (1995) Toward a better definition of the restless legs syndrome. The International Rest- less Legs Syndrome Study Group. Mov Disord 10(5):634-642
  11. Walters AS, Allen RP, Hening W et al (2003) The im- pact of restless legs syndrome symptoms on qua- lity of life: a population-based survey in the USA. Sleep 26:A329