SynthesisCerebellum (London, England)2012
Ataxia rating scales--psychometric profiles, natural history and their application in clinical trials.
Synthesis in Cerebellum (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
61 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 131 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic resonance imaging for spinocerebellar ataxia: a bibliometric analysis based on web of science.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Cerebellar Ataxia: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of Anodal Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Movements in Patients with Cerebellar Ataxias: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- MR Imaging in Spinocerebellar Ataxias: A Systematic Review.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2016Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Acetyl-DL-Leucine in Certain Types of Cerebellar Ataxia: The ALCAT Randomized Clinical Crossover Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- iPatax: a Tablet-based Tool for Quantitative Assessment of Cerebellar Ataxia.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Article
- Contrastive Learning Model for Wearable-Based Ataxia Assessment.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2026Article
- Exploring the Potential of Scales to Assess Different Types of Ataxia: Meta-review.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Review
- Recent developments in Friedreich's ataxia: a state-of-the-art review.Brain communications · 2026Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Upper Limb Ataxia Using a Virtual Reality-Based Evaluation System.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Walking Capacity in Children With Ataxia Telangiectasia From the Global Ataxia Telangiectasia Family Data Platform.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2025Article
- IMU-based segmental root mean square analysis of gait in individuals with cerebellar ataxia: a pilot cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Changes in Patient- and Clinical-Reported Outcomes in Early Spinocerebellar Ataxia Types 1, 2, 3, and 6 from the IDEA Study.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2025Article
- Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: a live e-version.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Validation of the Italian Version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) in Multiple Sclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2025Article
- The impact of neurological and cerebellar soft signs on psychosocial functioning in bipolar disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Clinical and cognitive assessment in Friedreich ataxia clinical trials: a review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- Cross-Cultural Translation and Validation of the Thai Version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA-TH).Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Consensus Recommendations for Clinical Outcome Assessments and Registry Development in Ataxias: Ataxia Global Initiative (AGI) Working Group Expert Guidance.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2024Review
- [Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA): translation and cultural adaptation to German-speaking areas].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2024Article
1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the existing ataxia scales. We described the disorders for which the instruments have been validated and used, the time spent in its application, its validated psychometric properties, and their use in studies of natural history and clinical trials. A search from 1997 onwards was performed in the MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases. The web sites ClinicalTrials.gov and Orpha.net were also used to identify the endpoints used in ongoing randomized clinical trials. We identified and described the semiquantitative ataxia scales (ICARS, SARA, MICARS, BARS); semiquantitative ataxia and non-ataxia scales (UMSARS, FARS, NESSCA); a semiquantitative non-ataxia scale (INAS); quantitative ataxia scales (CATSYS 2000, AFCS, CCFS and CCFSw, and SCAFI); and the self-performed ataxia scale (FAIS). SARA and ICARS were the best studied and validated so far, and their reliability sustain their use. Ataxia and non-ataxia scores will probably provide a better view of the overall disability in long-term trials and studies of natural history. Up to now, no clear advantage has been disclosed for any of them; however, we recommend the use of specific measurements of gait since gait ataxia is the first significant manifestation in the majority of ataxia disorders and comment on the best scales to be used in specific ataxia forms. Quantitative ataxia scales will be needed to speed up evidence from phase II clinical trials, from trials focused on the early phase of diseases, and for secondary endpoints in phase III trials. Finally, it is worth remembering that estimation of the actual minimal clinically relevant difference is still lacking; this, together with changes in quality of life, will probably be the main endpoints to measure in future therapeutic studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.