Trial reportPediatric neurology2022
Consistently High Agreement Between Independent Raters of Niemann-Pick Type C1 Clinical Severity Scale in Phase 2/3 Trial.
Trial report in Pediatric neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Convergent Validity of the Fine Motor, Speech, and Cognitive Domains of the 5-Domain Niemann-Pick Disease Type C Clinical Severity Scale.Journal of child neurology · 2026Article
- Phenotypic expression of swallowing function in Niemann-Pick disease type C1.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Observational
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
Abstract
backgroundNiemann-Pick disease, type C1 (NPC1) is a rare neurodegenerative genetic disorder characterized by impaired intracellular transport of cholesterol and other lipids. The Niemann-Pick Disease, type C1 Severity Scale (NPC-SS) was developed to quantify neurological progression of NPC; it is used to monitor the natural history of disease progression and assess response to treatment. The objective of the study was to examine the interrater reliability of the NPC-SS in a phase 2/3 trial.
methodsStudy data were from a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of adrabetadex in 56 subjects with NPC1. Clinical data recorded at each study site were distributed to two independent blinded central raters to generate a severity score. A composite four-item score was utilized as the primary clinical study end point, whereas a five-item focused score has been utilized in other NPC1 trials. Interrater reliability was assessed using two-way mixed models for instrument stability, Cohen kappa, weighted kappa, and percent agreement for the four- and five-item scores.
resultsThe frequency distribution and mean (S.D.) of the NPC-SS domain assessments by the raters were almost identical. Evaluation at the patient visit level showed wide variability between visits; however, weighted kappa calculation provided a lower variability between visits. The average kappa coefficients ranged between 0.69 and 0.89, indicating good to very good agreement between raters.
conclusionsThese results support the NPC-SS, including derived four- and five-item composite scores, as reliable measures for use in a clinical trial setting.
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.