We propose an analog restless legs syndrome (RLS) rating scale (ARLS) to assess RLS severity. ARLS has three components: overall perceived severity of symptoms, the severity of urge to move and the degree to which symptoms improve with movement, each scored from 0 to 100. ARLS is relatively convenient, easy to administer in clinics and can be rapidly assessed. Our goal was to compare the novel ARLS with the well-known International RLS Study Group scale (IRLS) to assess the efficacy of the ARLS. ARLS and IRLS were administered on 93 occasions. Perceived severity of the disease measured with ARLS positively correlated with the normalized IRLS score (correlation coefficient 0.6; slope 1.2; p < 0.0001). Improvement in symptoms after movement inversely correlated with the disease burden as measured with normalized IRLS score (slope -0.94; correlation coefficient 0.4; p = 0.0001). For both low and high IRLS scores, the urge to move measured with ARLS saturated, suggesting a non-linear, multifactorial relationship between the perception of RLS severity and the urge to move. In conclusion, individual components of the ARLS correlated well with total IRLS score. We emphasize that the ARLS is a simple RLS rating tool that can be used in clinical settings.

Keywords:
Restless legs syndrome, Sleep, Insomnia
1.
Ekbom KA: Restless legs: a clinical study. Acta Med Scand 1945;158:1-122.
2.
Allen RP, Picchietti D, Hening WA, Trenkwalder C, Walters AS, Montplaisi J: Restless legs syndrome: diagnostic criteria, special considerations, and epidemiology. A report from the restless legs syndrome diagnosis and epidemiology workshop at the National Institutes of Health. Sleep Med 2003;4:101-119.
3.
Abetz L, Allen R, Follet A, et al: Evaluating the quality of life of patients with restless legs syndrome. Clin Ther 2004;26:925-935.
4.
Winkelmann J, Wetter TC, Collado-Seidel V, et al: Clinical characteristics and frequency of the hereditary restless legs syndrome in a population of 300 patients. Sleep 2000;23:597-602.
5.
Walters AS, LeBrocq C, Dhar A, et al: Validation of the international restless legs syndrome study group rating scale for restless legs syndrome. Sleep Med 2003;4:121-132.
6.
Wunderlich GR, Evans KR, Sills T, et al: An item response analysis of the international restless legs syndrome study group rating scale for restless legs syndrome. Sleep Med 2005;6:131-139.
7.
Ritter PL, Gonzalez VM, Laurent DD, Lorig KR: Measurement of pain using the visual numeric scale. J Rheumatol 2006;33:574-580.
8.
Williams VS, Morlock RJ, Feltner D: Psychometric evaluation of a visual analog scale for the assessment of anxiety. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:57.
9.
Chapman CR, Casey KL, Dubner R, Foley KM, Gracely RH, Reading AE: Pain measurement: an overview. Pain 1985;22:1-31.
10.
Bradley LA: Psychological Evaluation of the low Back Pain Patient. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1989.
11.
Waddell G, Main CJ: Assessment of severity of low back disorders. Acta Orthop Belg 1987;53:269-271.
12.
Bentley AJ, Rosman KD, Mitchell D: Can the sensory symptoms of restless legs syndrome be assessed using a qualitative pain questionnaire? Clin J Pain 2007;23:62-66.
13.
Jung KY, Koo YS, Kim BJ, et al: Electrophysiologic disturbances during daytime in patients with restless legs syndrome: further evidence of cognitive dysfunction? Sleep Med 2011;12:416-421.
14.
Walters AS: Toward a better definition of the restless legs syndrome. The International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group. Mov Disord 1995;10:634-642.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.