This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hobart, J Articles by Thompson, A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hobart, J Articles by Thompson, A Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Peninsula Medical School, Plymouth, Devon, UK, Neurological Outcome Measures Unit, Institute of Neurology, University College, London, UK, Jeremy.Hobart{at}phnt.swest.nhs.uk

N Kalkers

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

F Barkhof

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

B Uitdehaag

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

C Polman

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

A Thompson

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

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.

Key Words: EDSS • health measurement • MS functional co mposite • psychometrics • quality of life measurement • rating scales

Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 10, No. 1, 41-46 (2004)
DOI: 10.1191/1352458504ms983oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. F. Foley and D. W. Brandes Redefining functionality and treatment efficacy in multiple sclerosis Neurology, June 9, 2009; 72(23_Supplement_5): S1 - S11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M. Zackowski, S. A. Smith, D. S. Reich, E. Gordon-Lipkin, B. A. Chodkowski, D. R. Sambandan, M. Shteyman, A. J. Bastian, P. C. van Zijl, and P. A. Calabresi Sensorimotor dysfunction in multiple sclerosis and column-specific magnetization transfer-imaging abnormalities in the spinal cord Brain, May 1, 2009; 132(5): 1200 - 1209. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B Brochet, M. Deloire, M Bonnet, E Salort-Campana, J. Ouallet, K. Petry, and V Dousset Should SDMT substitute for PASAT in MSFC? A 5-year longitudinal study Multiple Sclerosis, November 1, 2008; 14(9): 1242 - 1249. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J Furby, T Hayton, V Anderson, D Altmann, R Brenner, J Chataway, R. Hughes, K. Smith, D. Miller, and R Kapoor Magnetic resonance imaging measures of brain and spinal cord atrophy correlate with clinical impairment in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis Multiple Sclerosis, September 1, 2008; 14(8): 1068 - 1075. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D Bar-Zohar, F Agosta, D Goldstaub, and M Filippi Magnetic resonance imaging metrics and their correlation with clinical outcomes in multiple sclerosis: a review of the literature and future perspectives Multiple Sclerosis, July 1, 2008; 14(6): 719 - 727. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. R. Cutter and F. D. Lublin Responsiveness and predictive values in PPMS: An uncertain message Neurology, March 25, 2008; 70(13_Part_2): 1061 - 1062. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. F. Wu, E. D. Schwartz, T. Lei, A. Souza, S. Mishra, D. A. Jacobs, C. E. Markowitz, S. L. Galetta, M. L. Nano-Schiavi, L. M. Desiderio, et al. Relation of vision to global and regional brain MRI in multiple sclerosis Neurology, December 4, 2007; 69(23): 2128 - 2135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Z Khaleeli, J Sastre-Garriga, O Ciccarelli, D H Miller, and A J Thompson Magnetisation transfer ratio in the normal appearing white matter predicts progression of disability over 1 year in early primary progressive multiple sclerosis J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, October 1, 2007; 78(10): 1076 - 1082. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Agosta, M. Absinta, M. P. Sormani, A. Ghezzi, A. Bertolotto, E. Montanari, G. Comi, and M. Filippi In vivo assessment of cervical cord damage in MS patients: a longitudinal diffusion tensor MRI study Brain, August 1, 2007; 130(8): 2211 - 2219. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Schrag, C. Selai, N. Quinn, A. Lees, I. Litvan, A. Lang, Y. Poon, J. Bower, D. Burn, and J. Hobart Measuring quality of life in PSP: The PSP-QoL. Neurology, July 11, 2006; 67(1): 39 - 44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J C Hobart, A Riazi, D L Lamping, R Fitzpatrick, and A J Thompson How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, November 1, 2005; 76(11): 1539 - 1543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. M. Frohman, O. Stuve, E. Havrdova, J. Corboy, A. Achiron, R. Zivadinov, P. S. Sorensen, J. T. Phillips, B. Weinshenker, K. Hawker, et al. Therapeutic Considerations for Disease Progression in Multiple Sclerosis: Evidence, Experience, and Future Expectations Arch Neurol, October 1, 2005; 62(10): 1519 - 1530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. A. t Hart, H. P. M. Brok, E. Remarque, J. Benson, G. Treacy, S. Amor, R. Q. Hintzen, J. D. Laman, J. Bauer, and E. L. A. Blezer Suppression of Ongoing Disease in a Nonhuman Primate Model of Multiple Sclerosis by a Human-Anti-Human IL-12p40 Antibody J. Immunol., October 1, 2005; 175(7): 4761 - 4768. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]