Outcome measures for multiple sclerosis clinical trials: relative measurement precision of the Expanded Disability Status Scale and Multiple Sclerosis Functional C omposite

Author:

Hobart J1,Kalkers N2,Barkhof F3,Uitdehaag B2,Polman C2,Thompson A4

Affiliation:

1. Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth, Devon, UK, Neurological Outcome Measures Unit, Institute of Neurology, University College, London, UK,

2. Department of Neurology, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Department of Radiology, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

4. Neurological Outcome Measures Unit, Institute of Neurology, University College, London, UK

Abstract

We compared the relative measurement precision (RMP) of the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Multiple Sclerosis Functio nal C omposite (MSFC) for discriminating between groups of patients known to differ in their extent of multiple sclerosis (MS). A total of 133 patients were rated with the EDSS and MSFC and had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Patients were grouped on the basis of MRI appearances (T1- and T2-weighted lesion loads, parenchymal and ventricular fractions - T1LL, T2LL, PF, VF, respectively) and RMP was determined using the method of group differences. For each MRI parameter, the total sample was arranged in ascending order of magnitude and divided into two, three, four and five similar sized groups. For each division (two, three, four or five groups), EDSS and MSFC scores for the groups were compared using parametric (paired samples t-tests, one-way A NOVA) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon’s rank-sum test, Kruskal -Wallis analysis of variance) statistical methods and RMP was estimated. The EDSS and MSFC were correlated substantially (r = -0.64). Relative to the MSFC, the EDSS had inferior measurement precision regardless of the number of groups into which the total sample was divided, or the statistical method. However, the RMP of the EDSS compared with the MSFC varied from 2% to 86%. Results suggest the MSC F is better than the EDSS for detecting differences between groups of patients, defined by these MRI markers of MS. However, the finding that both scales correlated weakly with MRI markers, indicated that they are limited as predicto rs of MS patho logy as defined by MRI. A n explanatio n for this well-established clinical -MRI paradox is that rating scales and MRI measure fundamentally different manifestations of MS.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Neurology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3