A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools
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 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
1-10
Collins, Christian D.E.
3bc95dec-cdfc-45a7-ac37-8790a5010c2b
Ivry, Ben
03dc3321-a91f-4ddc-8be7-2ef4dbce42f6
Bowen, James D.
e8dbbe30-8060-4775-b2b1-f94900f4b69b
Cheng, Eric M.
f238fc63-d5f2-49bb-8aeb-baa009fcd9f7
Dobson, Ruth
8f52efa6-1001-4a02-914b-120866b8c7d6
Goodin, Douglas S.
67cf8591-f281-45b2-b978-57c09a74fde6
Lechner-Scott, Jeannette
23b9b67e-0caf-446e-be65-b6f635dd90f5
Kappos, Ludwig
50d6507f-4f1d-41b7-b83e-5809eab33542
Galea, Ian
66209a2f-f7e6-4d63-afe4-e9299f156f0b
12 November 2015
Collins, Christian D.E.
3bc95dec-cdfc-45a7-ac37-8790a5010c2b
Ivry, Ben
03dc3321-a91f-4ddc-8be7-2ef4dbce42f6
Bowen, James D.
e8dbbe30-8060-4775-b2b1-f94900f4b69b
Cheng, Eric M.
f238fc63-d5f2-49bb-8aeb-baa009fcd9f7
Dobson, Ruth
8f52efa6-1001-4a02-914b-120866b8c7d6
Goodin, Douglas S.
67cf8591-f281-45b2-b978-57c09a74fde6
Lechner-Scott, Jeannette
23b9b67e-0caf-446e-be65-b6f635dd90f5
Kappos, Ludwig
50d6507f-4f1d-41b7-b83e-5809eab33542
Galea, Ian
66209a2f-f7e6-4d63-afe4-e9299f156f0b
Collins, Christian D.E., Ivry, Ben, Bowen, James D., Cheng, Eric M., Dobson, Ruth, Goodin, Douglas S., Lechner-Scott, Jeannette, Kappos, Ludwig and Galea, Ian
(2015)
A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools.
Multiple Sclerosis Journal, .
(doi:10.1177/1352458515616205).
(PMID:26564998)
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
Text
__soton.ac.uk_ude_personalfiles_users_ig1_mydesktop_Collins CDE et al 2015.pdf
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 30 September 2015
Published date: 12 November 2015
Organisations:
Clinical & Experimental Sciences
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 384268
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/384268
ISSN: 1352-4585
PURE UUID: e7762207-f7c0-498e-a06e-5fa195892aa5
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 30 Nov 2015 09:14
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:16
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Christian D.E. Collins
Author:
Ben Ivry
Author:
James D. Bowen
Author:
Eric M. Cheng
Author:
Ruth Dobson
Author:
Douglas S. Goodin
Author:
Jeannette Lechner-Scott
Author:
Ludwig Kappos
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics
