Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34307740›Full record

ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2021

Determining the Validity of Conducting Rating Scales in Friedreich Ataxia through Video.

Geneieve Tai, Louise A Corben, Ian R Woodcock, Eppie M Yiu, Martin B Delatycki

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05692622 (Exploring Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Acceptability of a Novel Home-based Complex Intervention for Children With Ataxia Telangiectasia), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05692622 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Exploring Effectiveness, Feasibility, and Acceptability of a Novel Home-based Complex Intervention for Children With Ataxia Telangiectasia: a Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PlymouthRan2023 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsAtaxia Telangiectasia in Children, Ataxia TelangiectasiaArmsWhole-body exercise and respiratory exercise
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Geneieve TaiBruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research Murdoch Children's Research Institute Parkville Victoria Australia.
Louise A CorbenBruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research Murdoch Children's Research Institute Parkville Victoria Australia.
Ian R WoodcockDepartment of Paediatrics University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia.
Eppie M YiuBruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research Murdoch Children's Research Institute Parkville Victoria Australia.
Martin B DelatyckiBruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research Murdoch Children's Research Institute Parkville Victoria Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) are commonly used neurological rating scales in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA). The modified Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) has been accepted as an appropriate outcome measure for clinical trials in FRDA.

objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in limited face-to-face interactions with individuals involved in natural history studies and clinical trials. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of conducting the mFARS and SARA through video.

methodsIndividuals who had the mFARS administered face-to-face in the previous 6 months were invited to participate. Participants were sent instructions and asked to have a carer present to assist. The mFARS and SARA were then administered by video. Differences between face-to-face and video scores and the reliability between scores obtained face-to-face and by video were examined.

resultsThe mFARS and SARA were conducted by video with 19 individuals. Excellent test-retest reliability was seen in the mFARS lower limb coordination (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.98) and upright stability sections (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), total mFARS (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and SARA scores (ICC = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99).

conclusionsExcellent test-retest reliability was demonstrated in the majority of the mFARS sections, and in the total mFARS and SARA scores, suggesting that video is a valid method of conducting these scales. This method enables inclusion of participants who are unable to travel to study sites. A larger cohort will be required to further validate the use of video mFARS and SARA for future studies.

Indexed as

FARSFriedreich ataxiamFARSrating scalesSARA

Identifiers

PMID34307740
PMCPMC8287168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.