ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2020
Test-retest reliability of the Friedreich's ataxia rating scale.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peripheral frataxin levels govern long-term clinical progression in Friedreich ataxia.BMJ neurology open · 2026Article
- Predicting disease progression in progressive cerebellar ataxias: integrating clinical, imaging, fluid, genetic, and digital biomarkers.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Friedreich Ataxia: An (Almost) 30-Year History After Gene Discovery.Neurology. Genetics · 2025Article
- Clinical and cognitive assessment in Friedreich ataxia clinical trials: a review.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- At-home wearable-based monitoring predicts clinical measures and biological biomarkers of disease severity in Friedreich's Ataxia.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Longitudinal changes of SARA scale in Friedreich ataxia: Strong influence of baseline score and age at onset.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2023Article
- Harmonizing results of ataxia rating scales: mFARS, SARA, and ICARS.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2022Article
- Prediction of the disease course in Friedreich ataxia.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Recessive cerebellar and afferent ataxias - clinical challenges and future directions.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2022Review
- Friedreich's Ataxia related Diabetes: Epidemiology and management practices.Diabetes research and clinical practice · 2022Article
- Bone Mineral Density and Current Bone Health Screening Practices in Friedreich's Ataxia.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- A natural history study to track brain and spinal cord changes in individuals with Friedreich's ataxia: TRACK-FA study protocol.PloS one · 2022Article
- Digital endpoints for self-administered home-based functional assessment in pediatric Friedreich's ataxia.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2021Article
- Determining the Validity of Conducting Rating Scales in Friedreich Ataxia through Video.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The modified Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) is a disease specific, exam-based neurological rating scale commonly used as a outcome measure in clinical trials. While extensive clinimetric testing indicates it's validity in measuring disease progression, formal test-retest reliability was lacking. To fill this gap, we acquired results from screening and baseline visits of several large clinical trials and calculated intraclass correlation coefficients, coefficients of variance, standard error, and the minimally detectable changes. This study demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability of the mFARS, and it's upright stability subscore.
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.