Movement Disorder Society Task Force report on the Hoehn and Yahr staging scale: Status and recommendations The Movement Disorder Society Task Force on rating scales for Parkinson's disease
Corresponding Author
Christopher G. Goetz
Chairperson
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Rush University Medical Center, 1725 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60612Search for more papers by this authorWerner Poewe
Writing Committee
Innsbruck University Hospital, Innsbruck, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorOlivier Rascol
Writing Committee
Rascol, Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Medicale et Clinique, Toulouse, France
Search for more papers by this authorCristina Sampaio
Writing Committee
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Search for more papers by this authorGlenn T. Stebbins
Writing Committee
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Search for more papers by this authorCarl Counsell
Expert Consultant
Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal
Search for more papers by this authorNir Giladi
Expert Consultant
Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorRobert G. Holloway
Expert Consultant
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
Search for more papers by this authorCharity G. Moore
Expert Consultant
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
Search for more papers by this authorGregor K. Wenning
Expert Consultant
Innsbruck University Hospital, Innsbruck, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorMelvin D. Yahr
Expert Consultant
Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
Deceased.
Search for more papers by this authorLisa Seidl
Movement Disorder Society Secretariat Staff
The Movement Disorder Society, Milwaukee, WI
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Christopher G. Goetz
Chairperson
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Rush University Medical Center, 1725 W. Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60612Search for more papers by this authorWerner Poewe
Writing Committee
Innsbruck University Hospital, Innsbruck, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorOlivier Rascol
Writing Committee
Rascol, Laboratoire de Pharmacologie Medicale et Clinique, Toulouse, France
Search for more papers by this authorCristina Sampaio
Writing Committee
University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
Search for more papers by this authorGlenn T. Stebbins
Writing Committee
Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Search for more papers by this authorCarl Counsell
Expert Consultant
Hospital de Santa Maria, Lisbon, Portugal
Search for more papers by this authorNir Giladi
Expert Consultant
Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Search for more papers by this authorRobert G. Holloway
Expert Consultant
University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
Search for more papers by this authorCharity G. Moore
Expert Consultant
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC
Search for more papers by this authorGregor K. Wenning
Expert Consultant
Innsbruck University Hospital, Innsbruck, Austria
Search for more papers by this authorMelvin D. Yahr
Expert Consultant
Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY
Deceased.
Search for more papers by this authorLisa Seidl
Movement Disorder Society Secretariat Staff
The Movement Disorder Society, Milwaukee, WI
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The Movement Disorder Society Task Force for Rating Scales for Parkinson's disease (PD) prepared a critique of the Hoehn and Yahr scale (HY). Strengths of the HY scale include its wide utilization and acceptance. Progressively higher stages correlate with neuroimaging studies of dopaminergic loss, and high correlations exist between the HY scale and some standardized scales of motor impairment, disability, and quality of life. Weaknesses include the scale's mixing of impairment and disability and its non-linearity. Because the HY scale is weighted heavily toward postural instability as the primary index of disease severity, it does not capture completely impairments or disability from other motor features of PD and gives no information on nonmotor problems. Direct clinimetric testing of the HY scale has been very limited, but the scale fulfills at least some criteria for reliability and validity, especially for the midranges of the scale (Stages 2–4). Although a “modified HY scale” that includes 0.5 increments has been adopted widely, no clinimetric data are available on this adaptation. The Task Force recommends that: (1) the HY scale be used in its original form for demographic presentation of patient groups; (2) when the HY scale is used for group description, medians and ranges should be reported and analysis of changes should use nonparametric methods; (3) in research settings, the HY scale is useful primarily for defining inclusion/exclusion criteria; (4) to retain simplicity, clinicians should “rate what you see” and therefore incorporate comorbidities when assigning a HY stage; and (5) because of the wide usage of the modified HY scale with 0.5 increments, this adaptation warrants clinimetric testing. Without such testing, however, the original five-point scales should be maintained. © 2004 Movement Disorder Society
REFERENCES
- 1
Movement Disorder Society Task Force on Rating Scales for PD
Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale: status and recommendations.
Mov Disord
2003:
18:
738–750.
- 2
Hoehn MM,
Yahr MD.
Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality.
Neurology
1967;
17:
427–442.
- 3
Jankovic J,
McDermott M,
Carter J,
Gauthier S,
Goetz C,
Golbe L, et al.
Variable expression of Parkinson's disease: a base-line analysis of the DATATOP cohort.
Neurology
1990;
50:
1529–1534.
- 4
Fahn S,
Elton RL,
UPDRS program members.
Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale. In
S Fahn,
CD Marsden,
M Goldstein,
DB Calne, editors. Recent developments in Parkinson's disease, Vol
2.
Florham Park, NJ:
Macmillan Healthcare Information;
1987. p
153–163
- 5
Canter CJ,
de la Torre R,
Mier M.
A method of evaluating disability in patients with Parkinson's disease.
J Nerv Ment Dis
1961;
133:
143–147.
- 6
Webster DD.
Critical analysis of the disability in Parkinson's disease.
Mod Treat
1968;
5:
257–258.
- 7
Guy W.
ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology.
Rockville, MD:
US Department of Health, Education and Welfare;
1976.
- 8
Mitchell SL,
Harper DW,
Lau A,
Bhalle R.
Patterns of outcome measurement in Parkinson's disease clinical trials.
Neuroepidemiology
2000;
19:
100–108.
- 9
Diamond SG,
Markham CH.
Evaluating the evaluations: or how to weigh the scales of parkinsonian disability.
Neurology
1983;
33:
1098–1099.
- 10
Geminiani G,
Cesana BM,
Tamma F,
Contri P,
Pacchetti C,
Carella F, et al.
Interobserver reliability between neurologists in training of Parkinson's disease rating scales.
Mov Disord
1991;
6:
330–335.
- 11
Ramaker C,
Marinus J,
Stiggelbout AM,
van Hilten BJ.
Systematic evaluation of rating scales for impairment and disability in Parkinson's disease.
Mov Disord
2002;
17:
867–876.
- 12
Schrag A,
Selai C,
Jahanshahi M,
Quinn NP.
The EQ-5D—a generic quality of live measure—is a useful instrument to measure quality of life in patients with Parkinson's disease.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
2000;
69:
67–73.
- 13
Jenkinson C,
Fitzpatrick R,
Peto V,
Greenhall R,
Hyman N.
The Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39): development and validation of a Parkinson's disease summary index score.
Age Ageing
1997;
28:
353–357.
- 14
Welsh M,
McDermott MP,
Holloway RG,
Plumb S,
Pfeiffer R,
Hubble J,
Parkinson Study Group.
Development and testing of the Parkinson's disease quality of life scale.
Mov Disord
2003;
18:
637–645.
- 15
Pinter MM,
Pogarell O,
Oertel WH.
Efficacy, safety and tolerance of the non-ergoline dopamine agonist, pramipexole in the treatment of advanced PD.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
1999;
66:
436–441.
- 16
Reynolds NC,
Montgomery GK.
Factor analysis of Parkinson's impairment.
Arch Neurol
1987;
44:
1013–1016.
- 17
Henderson L,
Kennard C,
Crawford TJ,
Day S,
Everitt BS,
Goodrich S, et al.
Scales for rating motor impairment in Parkinson's disease: studies of reliability and convergent validity.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
1991;
54:
18–24.
- 18
Hely M,
Wilson A,
Williamson P,
O'Sullivan D,
Rail D,
Morris G.
Reliability of the Columbia scale for assessing signs of Parkinson's disease.
Mov Disord
1993;
8:
466–472.
- 19
Martinez-Martin P,
Gil-Nagel A,
Gracia LM,
Gomez JB,
Martinez-Sarries J,
Bermejo F.
Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale characteristics and structure.
The Cooperative Multicentric Group.
Mov Disord
1994;
9:
76–83.
- 20
Vingerhoets FJ,
Snow BJ,
Lee CS,
Schulzer M,
Mak E,
Calne DB.
Longitudinal fluorodopa positron emission tomographic studies of the evolution of idiopathic parkinsonism.
Ann Neurol
1994;
36:
759–764.
- 21
Marttila RJ,
Rinne UK.
Disability and progression in Parkinson's disease.
Acta Neurol Scand
1977;
56:
159–169.
- 22
Maier-Hoehn MM.
Parkinsonism treated with levodopa: progression and mortality.
J Neural Transm
1983;
19:
253–264.
- 23
Van Hilten JJ,
van der Zwan AD,
Zwinderman AH, et al.
Rating impairment and disability in Parkinson's disease: evaluation of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale.
Mov Disord
1994;
9:
84–88.
- 24
Poewe WH,
Wenning GK.
The natural history of Parkinson's disease.
Neurology
1996;
47
(Suppl.):
146–152.
- 25
Goetz CG,
Tanner CM,
Shannon KM.
Progression of Parkinson's disease without levodopa.
Neurology
1987;
37:
695–678.
- 26
Goetz CG,
Stebbins GT,
Blasucci LM.
Differential progression of motor impairment in levodopa-treated Parkinson's disease.
Mov Disord
2000;
15:
479–484.
- 27
Roos RAC,
Jongen JCF,
van der Velde EA.
Clinical course of patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease.
Mov Disord
1996;
11:
236–242.
- 28
Growdon JH,
Corkin S,
Desclos G,
Rosen TJ.
Hoehn and Yahr stage predicts extent of cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease.
Neurology
1987;
37:
157.
- 29
Staffen W,
Mair A,
Unterrainer J,
Trinka E,
Ladurner G.
Measuring the progression of idiopathic Parkinson's disease with 123I-β-CIT-SPECT.
J Neural Transm
2000;
107:
543–552.
- 30
Goetz CG,
Koller WC,
Poewe W,
Rascol O,
Sampaio C,
Task Force for Evidence-Based Review of the Movement Disorder Society.
Management of Parkinson's disease: an evidence-based review.
Mov Disord
2002;
12
(Suppl.):
1–166.
- 31
Lieberman A,
Ranhosky A,
Korts D.
Clinical evaluation of pramipexole in advanced PD.
Neurology
1997;
49:
162–168.
- 32
Guttman M,
International Pramipexole-Bromocritine Study Group.
Double-blind comparison of pramipexole and bromocriptine treatment with placebo in advanced PD.
Neurology
1997;
49:
1060–1065.
- 33
Pinter MM,
Helscher RJ,
Nasel COJ,
Riedl E,
Schnaberth G.
Quantification of motor deficit in Parkinson's disease with a motor performance test series.
J Neural Transm
1992;
4:
131–141.
- 34
Parkinson Study Group.
Safety and efficacy of pramipexole in early PD.
JAMA
1997;
278:
125–130.
- 35
Shannon KM,
Bennett JP,
Friedman JH,
Pramipexole Study Group.
Efficacy of pramipexole, a novel dopamine agonist, as monotherapy in mild to moderate PD.
Neurology
1997;
49:
724–728.
- 36
Hubble JP,
Koller WC,
Cutler NR,
Sramek JJ.
Pramipexole in patients with early PD.
Clin Neuropharmacol
1995;
18:
338–347.
- 37
Parkinson Study Group.
Pramipexole vs. levodopa as initial treatment for PD.
JAMA
2000;
284:
1931–1938.
- 38
Hely MA,
Morris JGL,
Traficante R,
Reid WG.
The Sydney multicentre study of Parkinson's disease: progression and mortality at 10 years.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
1999;
67:
300–307.
- 39
Müller J,
Wenning GK,
Jellinger K,
McKee A,
Poewe W,
Litvan I.
Progression of Hoehn and Yahr stages in parkinsonian disorders: a clinicopathologic study.
Neurology
2000;
55:
888–891.
- 40
Ginanneschi A,
Degl'Innocenti F,
Maurello MT,
Magnolfi S,
Marini P,
Amaducci L.
Evaluation of Parkinson's disease: reliability of three rating scales.
Neuroepidemiology
1988;
7:
38–41.
- 41
Ginanneschi A,
Degl'Innocenti F,
Maurello MT,
Magnolfi S,
Marini P,
Amaducci L.
Evaluation of Parkinson's disease: a new approach to disability.
Neuroepidemiology
1991;
10:
282–287.
- 42
Rabey JM,
Bass H,
Bonuccelli U,
Brooks D,
Klotz P,
Korczyn AD,
Kraus P,
Martinez-Martin P,
Morrish P,
Van Sauten W,
Van Hilten B.
Evaluation of the Short Parkinson's Evaluation Scale: a new friendly scale for the evaluation of Parkinson's disease in clinical drug trials.
Clin Neuropharmacol
1997;
20:
322–337.
- 43
Stebbins GT,
Goetz CG.
Factor structure of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale: motor examination section.
Mov Disord
1998;
13:
633–636.
- 44
Stebbins GT,
Goetz CG,
Lang AE,
Cubo E.
Factor analysis of the motor section of the unified Parkinson's disease ratings scale during the off-state.
Mov Disord
1999;
14:
585–589.
- 45
Eidelberg D,
Moeller JR,
Ishikawa T,
Spetsieris P,
Chaly T,
Robeson W,
Dahl JR,
Margouleff D.
Assessment of disease severity in parkinsonism with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose and PET.
J Nucl Med
1995;
36:
378–383.
- 46
Bird SB,
Dickson EW.
Clinically significant changes in pain along the visual analog scale.
Ann Emerg Med
2001;
38:
639–643.
- 47
Price DD,
Milling LS,
Kirsch I, et al.
An analysis of factors that contribute to the magnitude of placebo analgesia in an experimental paradigm.
Pain
1999;
83:
147–156.
- 48
Macedo A,
Nunes S,
Ferreira JJ,
Castro-Caldas A,
Durão V,
Sampaio C.
A survey of the evidence on the treatment of Parkinson's disease. In:
A Korczyn, editor. Fourth congress of the European society of clinical neuropharmacology.
Rome:
Monduzzi Editore;
1997. p
85–91.
- 49
Wheatley K,
Stowe RL,
Clarke CE,
Hills RK,
Williams AC,
Gray R.
Evaluating drug treatments for Parkinson's disease: how good are the trials?
BMJ
2002;
324:
1508–1511.