Abstract
Questionnaires for restless legs syndrome have rarely been validated against face-to-face interviews in the general population. We aimed to validate the modified Norwegian, seven-item Cambridge-Hopkins restless legs syndrome questionnaire and a single diagnostic question for restless legs syndrome. We also aimed to stratify validity at 65years of age. Among a random sample of 1,201 participants from the fourth wave of the Trøndelag Health Study, 232 (19%) agreed to participate, out of whom 221 had complete data for analyses. Participants completed the questionnaires for restless legs syndrome immediately before attending a face-to-face interview using the latest diagnostic criteria. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen's kappa statistic (κ) of questionnaire- versus interview-based diagnoses. We found acceptable validity of the seven-item modified Cambridge-Hopkins diagnostic questionnaire for restless legs syndrome (κ=0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.51) and good validity of the single diagnostic question (κ=0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.58). We also found good validity through the combination of modified Cambridge-Hopkins diagnostic questionnaire for restless legs syndrome items 2 and 5, while item 1 or 2 alone showed only acceptable validity. The single diagnostic question was significantly more valid among those aged <65years (κ=0.60 versus κ=0.26). Both single- and two-item questionnaire-based diagnoses overestimated interview-based restless legs syndrome prevalence. The seven-item modified Cambridge-Hopkins diagnostic questionnaire for restless legs syndrome will be useful for epidemiological studies although low sensitivity may cause underestimation of true restless legs syndrome prevalence in the general population, especially among elderly. Brief questionnaire-based diagnoses of up to three items seem best utilised as an initial screen. Future studies should identify brief and even more valid questionnaire-based diagnoses for restless legs syndrome in order to estimate prevalence accurately in large epidemiological studies.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.