ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
Face and content validation of the amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-Bulbar dysfunction index (ALS-BDI).
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Construct Validity of the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Bulbar Dysfunction Index-Remote.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- The Role of Ferroptosis in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Treatment.Neurochemical research · 2024Review
- Validation of the Center for Neurologic Study Bulbar Function Scale-Chinese version in a population with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Bulbar Dysfunction Index-Remote: Test-Retest and Interrater Reliability of Candidate Items.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Early detection and tracking of bulbar dysfunction in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are critical for directing management of the disease. Existing physiological assessments of bulbar dysfunction are often inaccessible and cost-prohibitive for clinical application. Existing clinical assessments are limited. The overall goal of our research is to develop a brief and reliable, clinician-administered assessment tool, the ALS Bulbar Dysfunction Index (ALS-BDI) to evaluate bulbar dysfunction. The aim of this study was to establish content and face validity of the ALS-BDI through item generation and reduction, including item scoring. Methods: The design of the ALS-BDI followed guidelines outlined by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The design stage of the ALS-BDI involved two steps: (Step 1) the generation of candidate items from a literature review of commonly used clinical tools, and selection of items following a review of item reliability and item relevance and expert consensus; (Step 2) the assessment of their content and face validity Results: Two drafts of the ALS-BDI were developed. The first draft contained 48 items, after a review of existing clinical tools for their relevance to bulbar dysfunction in ALS. Of the 48 items, 35 items were retained after surveying experts and clinician users for their relevance, feasibility, interpretability, and appropriateness. The second draft of the ALS-BDI contained 37 items, due to one item splitting, based on users cognitive interviews. Conclusions: The ALS-BDI described in this study aims to provide a brief and reliable, clinician-administered assessment tool to evaluate bulbar dysfunction in patients with ALS. Future research will evaluate the psychometric properties of this tool including its reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change over time.
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.