ArticleInternational journal of MS care
Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of Three Fatigue Scales in Persian-Speaking Patients with Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in International journal of MS care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFatigue is the most disabling symptom in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Although there is no standard tool to evaluate fatigue in clinical settings, the Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS), Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), and Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale are popular instruments for this purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric properties of the Persian versions of these scales.
methodsOne hundred thirty adult patients with MS and 60 controls participated in this study. They completed the scales on two occasions 3 days apart. Reproducibility and internal consistency were evaluated as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cronbach α. Convergent validity was assessed by evaluating the association of the fatigue scales with age, sex, Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score, disease duration, and sleep quality. Dimensionality was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Acceptability and known-group validity were investigated. The effect size of each scale was computed.
resultsThe ICC of all instruments was 0.99. Internal consistency was 0.97 for the MAF scale, 0.93 for FSS, and 0.83 for FIS. The instruments showed moderate-to-good correlations with Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, EDSS score, and disease duration. Acceptability was acceptable. The FIS had three dimensions, and the FSS and MAF scale were unidimensional. All scales were able to discriminate patients with MS from controls.
conclusionsThe Persian version of the MAF scale seems to be the most suitable instrument to evaluate fatigue in patients with MS based on its time efficiency, effect size, and detailed data about various aspects of fatigue.
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.