A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Expanded disability status scale; Kurtzke scale; Neurostatus; Patient-reported Expanded Disability Status Scale; multiple sclerosis; patient reported; self administered.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

© The Author(s), 2015.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Bland–Altman plots for Tools 1–5, and all tools combined.

References

    1. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33: 1444–1452.
    1. Kurtzke JF. A new scale for evaluating disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1955; 5: 580–583.
    1. Kappos L, D’Souza M, Lechner-Scott J, et al. On the origin of Neurostatus. Mult Scler Relat Disord 2015; 4: 182–185.
    1. Bowen J, Gibbons L, Gianas A, et al. Self-administered Expanded Disability Status Scale with functional system scores correlates well with a physician-administered test. Mult Scler 2001; 7: 201–206.
    1. Cheng EM, Hays RD, Myers LW, et al. Factors related to agreement between self-reported and conventional Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores. Mult Scler 2001; 7: 405–410.
    1. Goodin DS. A questionnaire to assess neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 1998; 4: 444–451.
    1. Lechner-Scott J, Kappos L, Hofman M, et al. Can the Expanded Disability Status Scale be assessed by telephone? Mult Scler 2003; 9: 154–159.
    1. Leddy S, Hadavi S, McCarren A, et al. Validating a novel web-based method to capture disease progression outcomes in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol 2013; 260: 2505–2510.
    1. Ratzker PK, Feldman JM, Scheinberg LC, et al. Self-assessment of neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Rehabil 1997; 11: 207–211.
    1. Solari A, Amato MP, Bergamaschi R, et al. Accuracy of self-assessment of the minimal record of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis. Acta Neurol Scand 1993; 87: 43–46.
    1. Verdier-Taillefer MH, Roullet E, Cesaro P, et al. Validation of self-reported neurological disability in multiple sclerosis. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 148–154.
    1. Uebersax JS. Diversity of decision-making models and the measurement of interrater agreement. Psychol Bull 1987; 101: 140–146.
    1. Muller R, Buttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation-coefficients. Stat Med 1994; 13: 2465–2476.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.
    1. Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Ismail R, et al. Statistical methods used to test for agreement of medical instruments measuring continuous variables in method comparison studies: a systematic review. PLoS One 2012; 7: e37908.
    1. Meyer-Moock S, Feng YS, Maeurer M, et al. 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. BMC Neurol 2014; 14: 58.
    1. Amato MP, Fratiglioni L, Groppi C, et al. Interrater reliability in assessing functional systems and disability on the Kurtzke scale in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1988; 45: 746–748.
    1. Francis DA, Bain P, Swan AV, et al. An assessment of disability rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1991; 48: 299–301.
    1. Goodkin DE, Cookfair D, Wende K, et al. Inter- and intrarater scoring agreement using grades 1.0 to 3.5 of the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Multiple Sclerosis Collaborative Research Group. Neurology 1992; 42: 859–863.
    1. Hobart J, Freeman J, Thompson A. Kurtzke scales revisited: the application of psychometric methods to clinical intuition. Brain 2000; 123(Pt 5): 1027–1040.
    1. Montalban X, Tintore M, Rio J, et al. Interobserver variability in the evaluation of functional systems and Kurzke expanded disability status scale in a multiple sclerosis patient. Rev Neurol 1996; 24: 630–632.
    1. Noseworthy JH, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, et al. Interrater variability with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Functional Systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. The Canadian Cooperation MS Study Group. Neurology 1990; 40: 971–975.
    1. Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, et al. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain 1999; 122(Pt 1): 141–159.
    1. Verdier-Taillefer MH, Zuber M, Lyon-Caen O, et al. Observer disagreement in rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: facts and consequences. Eur Neurol 1991; 31: 117–119.
    1. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124: 962–973.
    1. Sedgwick P. Limits of agreement (Bland-Altman method). BMJ 2013; 346: f1630.
    1. Bastawrous A, Rono HK, Livingstone IA, et al. Development and validation of a smartphone-based visual acuity test (Peek Acuity) for clinical practice and community-based fieldwork. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133: 930–937.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit