Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34858470›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021

Consensus Guidelines for Improving Quality of Assessment and Training for Neuromuscular Diseases.

Tina Duong, Kristin J Krosschell, Meredith K James, Leslie Nelson, Lindsay N Alfano, Katy Eichinger, Elena Mazzone, Kristy Rose, Linda P Lowes, Anna Mayhew and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors.

Tina DuongDepartment of Neurology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.
Kristin J KrosschellDepartment of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, United States.
Meredith K JamesThe John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Leslie NelsonDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States.
Lindsay N AlfanoDepartment of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Katy EichingerDepartment of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, United States.
Elena MazzoneDepartment of Child Neurology, Catholic University Policlinico Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Kristy RoseDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The Sydney Children's Hospital Network, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Linda P LowesDepartment of Pediatrics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Anna MayhewThe John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Julaine FlorenceDepartment of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Wendy KingDepartment of Neurology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Claudia R SenesacDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Michelle EagleThe John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Research Centre, Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critical components of successful evaluation of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) in multisite clinical trials and clinical practice are standardized training, administration, and documented reliability of scoring. Experiences of evaluators, alongside patient differences from regional standards of care, may contribute to heterogeneity in clinical center's expertise. Achieving low variability and high reliability of COA is fundamental to clinical research and to give confidence in our ability to draw rational, interpretable conclusions from the data collected. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a framework to guide the learning process for COAs for use in clinics and clinical trials to maximize reliability and validity of COAs in neuromuscular disease (NMD). This is a consensus-based guideline with contributions from fourteen leading experts in clinical outcomes and the field of clinical outcome training in NMD. This framework should guide reliable and valid assessments in NMD specialty clinics and clinical trials. This consensus aims to expedite study start up with a progressive training pathway ranging from research naïve to highly experienced clinical evaluators. This document includes recommendations for education guidelines and roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in COA assessment and implementation to ensure quality and consistency of outcome administration across different settings.

Indexed as

clinical evaluation educationclinical outcomes assessmentclinical trial readinessevaluator trainingneuromuscular disease (NMD)

Identifiers

PMID34858470
PMCPMC8631528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.