Cargando…
A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools
BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale (PREDSS) tools are an attractive alternative to the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) during long term or geographically challenging studies, or in pressured clinical service environments. OBJECTIVES: Because the studies reporting t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015760/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26564998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458515616205 |
_version_ | 1782452483621126144 |
---|---|
author | Collins, Christian DE Ivry, Ben Bowen, James D Cheng, Eric M Dobson, Ruth Goodin, Douglas S Lechner-Scott, Jeannette Kappos, Ludwig Galea, Ian |
author_facet | Collins, Christian DE Ivry, Ben Bowen, James D Cheng, Eric M Dobson, Ruth Goodin, Douglas S Lechner-Scott, Jeannette Kappos, Ludwig Galea, Ian |
author_sort | Collins, Christian DE |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale (PREDSS) tools are an attractive alternative to the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) during long term or geographically challenging studies, or in pressured clinical service environments. OBJECTIVES: Because the studies reporting these tools have used different metrics to compare the PREDSS and EDSS, we undertook an individual patient data level analysis of all available tools. METHODS: Spearman’s rho and the Bland–Altman method were used to assess correlation and agreement respectively. RESULTS: A systematic search for validated PREDSS tools covering the full EDSS range identified eight such tools. Individual patient data were available for five PREDSS tools. Excellent correlation was observed between EDSS and PREDSS with all tools. A higher level of agreement was observed with increasing levels of disability. In all tools, the 95% limits of agreement were greater than the minimum EDSS difference considered to be clinically significant. However, the intra-class coefficient was greater than that reported for EDSS raters of mixed seniority. The visual functional system was identified as the most significant predictor of the PREDSS–EDSS difference. CONCLUSION: This analysis will (1) enable researchers and service providers to make an informed choice of PREDSS tool, depending on their individual requirements, and (2) facilitate improvement of current PREDSS tools. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5015760 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50157602016-09-12 A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools Collins, Christian DE Ivry, Ben Bowen, James D Cheng, Eric M Dobson, Ruth Goodin, Douglas S Lechner-Scott, Jeannette Kappos, Ludwig Galea, Ian Mult Scler Original Research Papers BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale (PREDSS) tools are an attractive alternative to the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) during long term or geographically challenging studies, or in pressured clinical service environments. OBJECTIVES: Because the studies reporting these tools have used different metrics to compare the PREDSS and EDSS, we undertook an individual patient data level analysis of all available tools. METHODS: Spearman’s rho and the Bland–Altman method were used to assess correlation and agreement respectively. RESULTS: A systematic search for validated PREDSS tools covering the full EDSS range identified eight such tools. Individual patient data were available for five PREDSS tools. Excellent correlation was observed between EDSS and PREDSS with all tools. A higher level of agreement was observed with increasing levels of disability. In all tools, the 95% limits of agreement were greater than the minimum EDSS difference considered to be clinically significant. However, the intra-class coefficient was greater than that reported for EDSS raters of mixed seniority. The visual functional system was identified as the most significant predictor of the PREDSS–EDSS difference. CONCLUSION: This analysis will (1) enable researchers and service providers to make an informed choice of PREDSS tool, depending on their individual requirements, and (2) facilitate improvement of current PREDSS tools. SAGE Publications 2015-11-12 2016-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5015760/ /pubmed/26564998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458515616205 Text en © The Author(s), 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Papers Collins, Christian DE Ivry, Ben Bowen, James D Cheng, Eric M Dobson, Ruth Goodin, Douglas S Lechner-Scott, Jeannette Kappos, Ludwig Galea, Ian A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools |
title | A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools |
title_full | A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools |
title_fullStr | A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools |
title_short | A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools |
title_sort | comparative analysis of patient-reported expanded disability status scale tools |
topic | Original Research Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015760/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26564998 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1352458515616205 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT collinschristiande acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT ivryben acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT bowenjamesd acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT chengericm acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT dobsonruth acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT goodindouglass acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT lechnerscottjeannette acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT kapposludwig acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT galeaian acomparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT collinschristiande comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT ivryben comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT bowenjamesd comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT chengericm comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT dobsonruth comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT goodindouglass comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT lechnerscottjeannette comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT kapposludwig comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools AT galeaian comparativeanalysisofpatientreportedexpandeddisabilitystatusscaletools |