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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Collins, Christian DE, Ivry, Ben, Bowen, James D, Cheng, Eric M, Dobson, Ruth, Goodin, Douglas S, Lechner-Scott, Jeannette, Kappos, Ludwig, Galea, Ian
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