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.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine social desirability and social approval as sources of error in three self-reported physical activity assessments using objective measures of physical activity as reference measures. In 1997, women (n = 81) living in Worcester, Massachusetts, completed doubly labeled water measurements and wore an activity monitor for 14 days. They also completed seven interviewer-administered 24-hour physical activity recalls (PARs) and two different self-administered 7-day PARs. Measures of the personality traits "social desirability" and "social approval" were regressed on 1) the difference between physical activity energy expenditure estimated from doubly labeled water and each physical activity assessment instrument and 2) the difference between monitor-derived physical activity duration and each instrument. Social desirability was associated with overreporting of activity, resulting in overestimation of physical activity energy expenditure by 0.65 kcal/kg/day on the second 7-day PAR (95% confidence interval: 0.06, 1.25) and overestimation of activity durations by 4.15-11.30 minutes/day (both 7-day PARs). Social approval was weakly associated with underestimation of physical activity on the 24-hour PAR (-0.15 kcal/kg/day, 95% confidence interval: -0.30, 0.005). Body size was not associated with reporting bias in this study. The authors conclude that social desirability and social approval may influence self-reported physical activity on some survey instruments.

IMPORTANCEParkinson disease is a progressive neurologic disorder. Limited evidence suggests endurance exercise modifies disease severity, particularly high-intensity exercise.OBJECTIVES To examine the feasibility and safety of high-intensity treadmill exercise in patients with de novo Parkinson disease who are not taking medication and whether the effect on motor symptoms warrants a phase 3 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThe Study in Parkinson Disease of Exercise (SPARX) was a phase 2, multicenter randomized clinical trial with 3 groups and masked assessors. Individuals from outpatient and community-based clinics were enrolled from May 1, 2012, through November 30, 2015, with the primary end point at 6 months. Individuals with idiopathic Parkinson disease (Hoehn and Yahr stages 1 or 2) aged 40 to 80 years within 5 years of diagnosis who were not exercising at moderate intensity greater than 3 times per week and not expected to need dopaminergic medication within 6 months participated in this study. A total of 384 volunteers were screened by telephone; 128 were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups (high-intensity exercise, moderate-intensity exercise, or control). INTERVENTIONS High-intensity treadmill exercise (4 days per week, 80%-85% maximum heart rate [n = 43]), moderate-intensity treadmill exercise (4 days per week, 60%-65% maximum heart rate [n = 45]), or wait-list control (n = 40) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Feasibility measures were adherence to prescribed heart rate and exercise frequency of 3 days per week and safety. The clinical outcome was 6-month change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor score.RESULTS A total of 128 patients were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 64 [9] years; age range, 40-80 years; 73 [57.0%] male; and 108 [84.4%] non-Hispanic white). Exercise rates were 2.8 (95% CI, 2.4-3.2) days per week at 80.2% (95% CI, 78.8%-81.7%) maximum heart rate in the high-intensity group and 3.2 (95% CI, 2.8-3.6; P = .13) days per week at 65.9% (95% CI, 64.2%-67.7%) maximum heart rate in the moderate-intensity group (P < .001). The mean change in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor score in the high-intensity group was 0.3 (95% CI, −1.7 to 2.3) compared with 3.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 5.1) in the usual care group (P = .03). The high-intensity group, but not the moderate-intensity group, reached the predefined nonfutility threshold compared with the control group. Anticipated adverse musculoskeletal events were not severe.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE High-intensity treadmill exercise may be feasible and prescribed safely for patients with Parkinson disease. An efficacy trial is warranted to determine whether high-intensity treadmill exercise produces meaningful clinical benefits in de novo Parkinson disease.

Advances in clinical and translation science are facilitated by building on prior knowledge gained through experimentation and observation. In the context of drug development, preclinical studies are followed by a progression of phase I through phase IV clinical trials. At each step, the study design and statistical strategies are framed around research questions that are prerequisites for the next phase. In other types of biomedical research, pilot studies are used for gathering preliminary support for the next research step. However, the phrase “pilot study” is liberally applied to projects with little or no funding, characteristic of studies with poorly developed research proposals, and usually conducted with no detailed thought of the subsequent study. In this article, we present a rigorous definition of a pilot study, offer recommendations for the design, analysis and sample size justification of pilot studies in clinical and translational research, and emphasize the important role that well‐designed pilot studies play in the advancement of science and scientific careers. Clin Trans Sci 2011; Volume 4: 332–337

BACKGROUND Hypertension is common in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and is associated with increased total kidney volume, activation of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, and progression of kidney disease. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 558 hypertensive participants with ADPKD (15 to 49 years of age, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate [GFR] >60 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area) to either a standard blood-pressure target (120/70 to 130/80 mm Hg) or a low blood-pressure target (95/60 to 110/75 mm Hg) and to either an angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril) plus an angiotensin-receptor blocker (telmisartan) or lisinopril plus placebo. The primary outcome was the annual percentage change in the total kidney volume. RESULTS The annual percentage increase in total kidney volume was significantly lower in the low-blood-pressure group than in the standard-blood-pressure group (5.6% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.006), without significant differences between the lisinopril–telmisartan group and the lisinopril–placebo group. The rate of change in estimated GFR was similar in the two medication groups, with a negative slope difference in the short term in the low-blood-pressure group as compared with the standard-blood-pressure group (P<0.001) and a marginally positive slope difference in the long term (P = 0.05). The left-ventricular-mass index decreased more in the low-blood-pressure group than in the standard-blood-pressure group (−1.17 vs. −0.57 g per square meter per year, P<0.001); urinary albumin excretion was reduced by 3.77% with the low-pressure target and increased by 2.43% with the standard target (P<0.001). Dizziness and light-headedness were more common in the low-blood-pressure group than in the standard-blood-pressure group (80.7% vs. 69.4%, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS In early ADPKD, the combination of lisinopril and telmisartan did not significantly alter the rate of increase in total kidney volume. As compared with standard blood-pressure control, rigorous blood-pressure control was associated with a slower increase in total kidney volume, no overall change in the estimated GFR, a greater decline in the left-ventricular-mass index, and greater reduction in urinary albumin excretion.