ArticleJournal of neurology2019
In search of distinct MS-related fatigue subtypes: results from a multi-cohort analysis in 1.403 MS patients.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2019. 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.
- The Association Between Actigraphy-Derived Behavioral Clusters and Self-Reported Fatigue in Persons With Multiple Sclerosis: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2022Article
- The pathophysiology of motor fatigue and fatigability in multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- Association of Fatigue Severity With Maladaptive Coping in Multiple Sclerosis: A Data-Driven Psychodynamic Perspective.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
- Assessing fatigue in multiple sclerosis: Psychometric properties of the five-item Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-5).Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
- Validity and reliability of fatigue scale for motor and cognitive functions (FSMC) in an Iranian population of people with multiple sclerosis.Multiple sclerosis journal - experimental, translational and clinicalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fatigue is among the most disabling symptoms in patients with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). The common distinction between cognitive and motor fatigue is typically incorporated in self-rating instruments, such as the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Functions (FSMC) or the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). The present study investigated the factor structure of the CFQ, the FSMC and the MFIS utilizing exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) as well as exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). Data of 1.403 PwMS were analyzed, utilizing four samples. The first sample (N = 605) was assessed online and split into two stratified halves to perform EFA, CFA, and ESEM on the CFQ and FSMC. The second sample (N = 293) was another online sample. It served to calculate CFA and ESEM on the CFQ and FSMC. The third sample was gathered in a clinical setting (N = 196) and analyzed by applying CFA and ESEM to the FSMC. The fourth sample (N = 309) was assessed in a clinical setting and allowed to run a CFA and ESEM on the MFIS. Proposed factor structures of all questionnaires were largely confirmed in EFA. However, none of the calculated CFAs and ESEMs could verify the proposed factor structures of the three measures, even with oblique rotation techniques. The findings might have implications for future research into the pathophysiological basis of MS-related fatigue and could affect the suitability of such measures as outcomes for treatment trials, presumably targeting specific sub-components of fatigue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31004211What 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.