Cargando…

Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND: There are a number of instruments that describe severity and progression of multiple sclerosis and they are increasingly used as endpoints to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. We examined to what extent the psychometric properties of two accepted instruments – EDSS a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Meyer-Moock, Sandra, Feng, You-Shan, Maeurer, Mathias, Dippel, Franz-Werner, Kohlmann, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24666846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-58
_version_ 1782311796708737024
author Meyer-Moock, Sandra
Feng, You-Shan
Maeurer, Mathias
Dippel, Franz-Werner
Kohlmann, Thomas
author_facet Meyer-Moock, Sandra
Feng, You-Shan
Maeurer, Mathias
Dippel, Franz-Werner
Kohlmann, Thomas
author_sort Meyer-Moock, Sandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There are a number of instruments that describe severity and progression of multiple sclerosis and they are increasingly used as endpoints to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. We examined to what extent the psychometric properties of two accepted instruments – EDSS and MSFC – meet methodological standards and the value they have in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in relevant databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO & PSYNDEX, CINAHL] yielding 3,860 results. Relevant full-text publications were identified using abstract and then full-text reviews, and the literature was reviewed. RESULTS: For evaluation of psychometric properties (validity, reliability, sensitivity of change) of EDSS and MSFC, 120 relevant full-text publications were identified, 54 of them assessed the EDSS, 26 the MSFC and 40 included both instruments. The EDSS has some documented weaknesses in reliability and sensitivity to change. The main limitations of the MSFC are learning effects and the z-scores method used to calculate the total score. However, the methodological criterion of validity applies sufficiently for both instruments. For use in clinical studies, we found the EDSS to be preferred as a primary and secondary outcome measure in recent studies (50 EDSS, 9 MSFC). CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing their strengths and weaknesses, both EDSS and MSFC are suitable to detect the effectiveness of clinical interventions and to monitor disease progression. Almost all publications identify the EDSS as the most widely used tool to measure disease outcomes in clinical trials. Despite some limitations, both instruments are accepted as endpoints and neither are discussed as surrogate parameters in identified publications. A great advantage of the EDSS is its international acceptance (e.g. by EMA) as a primary endpoint in clinical trials and its broad use in trials, enabling cross-study comparisons.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3986942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39869422014-04-16 Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis Meyer-Moock, Sandra Feng, You-Shan Maeurer, Mathias Dippel, Franz-Werner Kohlmann, Thomas BMC Neurol Research Article BACKGROUND: There are a number of instruments that describe severity and progression of multiple sclerosis and they are increasingly used as endpoints to assess the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions. We examined to what extent the psychometric properties of two accepted instruments – EDSS and MSFC – meet methodological standards and the value they have in clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in relevant databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), ISI Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO & PSYNDEX, CINAHL] yielding 3,860 results. Relevant full-text publications were identified using abstract and then full-text reviews, and the literature was reviewed. RESULTS: For evaluation of psychometric properties (validity, reliability, sensitivity of change) of EDSS and MSFC, 120 relevant full-text publications were identified, 54 of them assessed the EDSS, 26 the MSFC and 40 included both instruments. The EDSS has some documented weaknesses in reliability and sensitivity to change. The main limitations of the MSFC are learning effects and the z-scores method used to calculate the total score. However, the methodological criterion of validity applies sufficiently for both instruments. For use in clinical studies, we found the EDSS to be preferred as a primary and secondary outcome measure in recent studies (50 EDSS, 9 MSFC). CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing their strengths and weaknesses, both EDSS and MSFC are suitable to detect the effectiveness of clinical interventions and to monitor disease progression. Almost all publications identify the EDSS as the most widely used tool to measure disease outcomes in clinical trials. Despite some limitations, both instruments are accepted as endpoints and neither are discussed as surrogate parameters in identified publications. A great advantage of the EDSS is its international acceptance (e.g. by EMA) as a primary endpoint in clinical trials and its broad use in trials, enabling cross-study comparisons. BioMed Central 2014-03-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3986942/ /pubmed/24666846 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-58 Text en Copyright © 2014 Meyer-Moock et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Meyer-Moock, Sandra
Feng, You-Shan
Maeurer, Mathias
Dippel, Franz-Werner
Kohlmann, Thomas
Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis
title Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis
title_full Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis
title_fullStr Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis
title_full_unstemmed Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis
title_short Systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) in patients with multiple sclerosis
title_sort systematic literature review and validity evaluation of the expanded disability status scale (edss) and the multiple sclerosis functional composite (msfc) in patients with multiple sclerosis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24666846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-14-58
work_keys_str_mv AT meyermoocksandra systematicliteraturereviewandvalidityevaluationoftheexpandeddisabilitystatusscaleedssandthemultiplesclerosisfunctionalcompositemsfcinpatientswithmultiplesclerosis
AT fengyoushan systematicliteraturereviewandvalidityevaluationoftheexpandeddisabilitystatusscaleedssandthemultiplesclerosisfunctionalcompositemsfcinpatientswithmultiplesclerosis
AT maeurermathias systematicliteraturereviewandvalidityevaluationoftheexpandeddisabilitystatusscaleedssandthemultiplesclerosisfunctionalcompositemsfcinpatientswithmultiplesclerosis
AT dippelfranzwerner systematicliteraturereviewandvalidityevaluationoftheexpandeddisabilitystatusscaleedssandthemultiplesclerosisfunctionalcompositemsfcinpatientswithmultiplesclerosis
AT kohlmannthomas systematicliteraturereviewandvalidityevaluationoftheexpandeddisabilitystatusscaleedssandthemultiplesclerosisfunctionalcompositemsfcinpatientswithmultiplesclerosis