BACKGROUND: A study was conducted to validate a comprehensive self-rating scale for measuring side-effects of neuroleptic drugs. METHOD: The Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS), which includes 'red herring' items, was twice administered to 50 DSM-III-R schizophrenic patients, who were also interviewed using the UKU side-effect rating scale; 50 unmedicated controls also completed the LUNSERS: RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the LUNSERS was good (r = 0.811, P < 0.001) as was its concurrent validity against the UKU (r = 0.828, P < 0.001). Scores correlated with chlorpromazine equivalent doses (r = 0.310, P < 0.02). ROC analysis demonstrated that the scale discriminated between patients and non-medicated controls, who scored differently for real side-effects but not for 'red herring' items. CONCLUSIONS: The LUNSERS is an efficient, reliable and valid method of assessing neuroleptic side-effects.
BACKGROUND: A study was conducted to validate a comprehensive self-rating scale for measuring side-effects of neuroleptic drugs. METHOD: The Liverpool University Neuroleptic Side Effect Rating Scale (LUNSERS), which includes 'red herring' items, was twice administered to 50 DSM-III-R schizophrenicpatients, who were also interviewed using the UKU side-effect rating scale; 50 unmedicated controls also completed the LUNSERS: RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the LUNSERS was good (r = 0.811, P < 0.001) as was its concurrent validity against the UKU (r = 0.828, P < 0.001). Scores correlated with chlorpromazine equivalent doses (r = 0.310, P < 0.02). ROC analysis demonstrated that the scale discriminated between patients and non-medicated controls, who scored differently for real side-effects but not for 'red herring' items. CONCLUSIONS: The LUNSERS is an efficient, reliable and valid method of assessing neuroleptic side-effects.
Authors: Subramaniam Uthayathas; Christopher L Shaffer; Frank S Menniti; Christopher J Schmidt; Stella M Papa Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2013-02-16 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: S Smith; D Yeomans; C J P Bushe; C Eriksson; T Harrison; R Holmes; L Mynors-Wallis; H Oatway; G Sullivan Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.503