ArticleJournal of neurology2017
How does performance of the Friedreich Ataxia Functional Composite compare to rating scales?
Article in Journal of neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A natural history study to track brain and spinal cord changes in individuals with Friedreich's ataxia: TRACK-FA study protocol.PloS one · 2022Article
- Determining the Validity of Conducting Rating Scales in Friedreich Ataxia through Video.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2021Article
- Developing an objective evaluating system to quantify the degree of upper limb movement impairment in patients with severe Friedreich's ataxia.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020Article
- The NRF2 Signaling Network Defines Clinical Biomarkers and Therapeutic Opportunity in Friedreich's Ataxia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- The current state of biomarker research for Friedreich's ataxia: a report from the 2018 FARA biomarker meeting.Future science OA · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Progression of Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) is often measured using neurological rating scales such as the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS). Performance scales comprising functional measures have been used in other conditions due to their increased sensitivity and reproducibility and may replace examination-based measures. The aims of this study were to examine the relationship between the Friedreich Ataxia Functional Composite (FAFC) measures and characteristics of FRDA to determine if the FAFC is more sensitive to clinical change over time compared to its components. One hundred and twenty-two individuals completed the timed 25-foot walk (T25FW), 9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT) and the low-contrast letter acuity (LCLA) test at baseline, 63 at year 1, 34 at year 2 and 25 at year 3. Composite scores, Z2 (T25FW and 9HPT) and Z3 (T25FW, 9HPT and LCLA) were created. Correlation analyses were conducted. Change in FAFC components were examined over 1, 2, and 3 years. The FARS, Z2, Z3 and 9HPT showed significant change over all time points compared to baseline. The T25FW only demonstrated significant change over 3 years. The LCLA demonstrated no significant change over any of the time points. The FAFC shows significant change over time and indicates disease progression, however, this may result from individual components driving the differences. The LCLA showed no change over time, rendering Z3 redundant. The FAFC is of limited value in cohorts with non-ambulant individuals as it leads to skewing of the dataset and is better suited to less affected populations.
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.