Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Volume 290, Issue 1 , Pages 102-106 , 15 March 2010

Responsiveness of patient-based and external rating scales in multiple sclerosis: Head-to-head comparison in three clinical settings

  • Stefan M. Gold

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, UCLA School of Medicine, 635 Charles Young Dr S, Los Angeles, CA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Multiple Sclerosis Program, Dept Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, 635 Charles Young Dr S, Rm 479, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. Tel.: +1 310 206 4640; fax: +1 310 206 7282.
    • ,
  • Holger Schulz

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • Heike Stein

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Neuroimmunology and Clinical MS-Research (INiMS), University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • Katrin Solf

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Neuroimmunology and Clinical MS-Research (INiMS), University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • Karl-Heinz Schulz

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Medical Psychology, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg, Germany
    • Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Center for Transplantation Medicine, University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg, Germany
    • ,
  • Christoph Heesen

      Affiliations

    • Institute of Neuroimmunology and Clinical MS-Research (INiMS), University Hospital Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, Hamburg, Germany

Received 7 May 2009 ,Revised 6 October 2009 ,Accepted 21 October 2009.

References 

  1. Sharrack B, Hughes RA, Soudain S, Dunn G. The psychometric properties of clinical rating scales used in multiple sclerosis. Brain. Jan 1999;122(Pt 1):141–159
  2. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, Cookfair DL, Fischer JS, Petkau J, et al. Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain. 1999;122(Pt 5)(3):871–882
  3. Kragt JJ, Thompson AJ, Montalban X, Tintore M, Rio J, Polman CH, et al. Responsiveness and predictive value of EDSS and MSFC in primary progressive MS. Neurology. Mar 25 2008;70(13 Pt 2):1084–1091
  4. Hoogervorst EL, Eikelenboom MJ, Uitdehaag BM, Polman CH. One year changes in disability in multiple sclerosis: neurological examination compared with patient self report. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Apr 2003;74(4):439–442
  5. Mitchell AJ, Benito-Leon J, Gonzalez JM, Rivera-Navarro J. Quality of life and its assessment in multiple sclerosis: integrating physical and psychological components of wellbeing. Lancet Neurol. Sep 2005;4(9):556–566
  6. Nortvedt MW, Riise T. The use of quality of life measures in multiple sclerosis research. Mult Scler. Feb 2003;9(1):63–72
  7. Ozakbas S, Akdede BB, Kosehasanogullari G, Aksan O, Idiman E. Difference between generic and multiple sclerosis-specific quality of life instruments regarding the assessment of treatment efficacy. J Neurol Sci. May 15 2007;256(1–2):30–34
  8. Rudick RA, Miller D, Hass S, Hutchinson M, Calabresi PA, Confavreux C, et al. Health-related quality of life in multiple sclerosis: effects of natalizumab. Ann Neurol. Oct 2007;62(4):335–346
  9. Simone IL, Ceccarelli A, Tortorella C, Bellacosa A, Pellegrini F, Plasmati I, et al. Influence of Interferon beta treatment on quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:96
  10. Gold SM, Heesen C, Schulz H, Guder U, Monch A, Gbadamosi J, et al. Disease specific quality of life instruments in multiple sclerosis: validation of the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS). Mult Scler. Apr 2001;7(2):119–130
  11. Gold SM, Schulz H, Monch A, Schulz KH, Heesen C. Cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis does not affect reliability and validity of self-report health measures. Mult Scler. Aug 2003;9(4):404–410
  12. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. Feb 2008;61(2):102–109
  13. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70
  14. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444–1452
  15. Mumford CJ, Compston A. Problems with rating scales for multiple sclerosis: a novel approach—the CAMBS score. J Neurol. 1993;240(4):209–215
  16. Liang MH, Lew RA, Stucki G, Fortin PR, Daltroy L. Measuring clinically important changes with patient-oriented questionnaires. Med Care. Apr 2002;40(4 Suppl):II45–II51
  17. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC, Hens MM. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990 Oct;71(11):870–875
  18. Collen FM, Wade DT, Robb GF, Bradshaw CM. The Rivermead Mobility Index: a further development of the Rivermead Motor Assessment. Int Disabil Stud. Apr–Jun 1991;13(2):50–54
  19. Schulz KH, Gold SM, Witte J, Bartsch K, Lang UE, Hellweg R, et al. Impact of aerobic training on immune-endocrine parameters, neurotrophic factors, quality of life and coordinative function in multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. Oct 15 2004;225(1–2):11–18
  20. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. May 1985;28(5):542–547
  21. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. May 2003;41(5):582–592
  22. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping DL, Fitzpatrick R, Thompson AJ. How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Nov 2005;76(11):1539–1543
  23. Khan F, Pallant JF, Brand C, Kilpatrick TJ. Effectiveness of rehabilitation intervention in persons with multiple sclerosis: a randomised controlled trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Nov 2008;79(11):1230–1235
  24. Freeman JA, Hobart JC, Thompson AJ. Does adding MS-specific items to a generic measure (the SF-36) improve measurement?. Neurology. Jul 10 2001;57(1):68–74
  25. Greenhalgh J, Ford H, Long AF, Hurst K. The MS Symptom and Impact Diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Apr 2004;75(4):577–582
  26. Bethoux F, Miller DM, Kinkel RP. Recovery following acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis: from impairment to quality of life. Mult Scler. Apr 2001;7(2):137–142
  27. Tripoliti E, Campbell C, Pring T, Taylor-Goh S. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: should clinicians trust proxy ratings?. Mult Scler. Nov 2007;13(9):1190–1194

PII: S0022-510X(09)00938-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2009.10.020

Journal of the Neurological Sciences
Volume 290, Issue 1 , Pages 102-106 , 15 March 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution