ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2023
The Rush Video-Based Tic Rating Scale-Revised: A Practice-Oriented Revision.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Influence of Videography in the Foundation and Future of Movement Disorders.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Review
- Case Report: Effect of medicinal cannabis on fitness to drive in a patient with Tourette Syndrome and ADHD.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Tourette syndrome research highlights from 2023.F1000Research · 2024Review
- "The Rush Video-Based Tic Rating Scale-Revised: A Practice-Oriented Revision".Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Article
- Reply to a Letter to the Editor Entitled "Comment: The Rush Video-Based Tic Rating Scale-Revised: A Practice-Oriented Revision" Responding to our Paper "the Rush Video-Based Tic Rating Scale-Revised: A Practice-Oriented Revision".Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Modified Rush Video-Based Tic Rating Scale (MRVS) is the most widely used video-based scale for assessing tic severity in patients with Tourette syndrome (TS). However, shortcomings of the MRVS, including a lack of clear instructions, a time-consuming recording procedure, and weak correlations with the gold standard for tic assessment, the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-Total Tic Score (YGTSS-TTS), limits its use in research settings, although video assessments are generally considered objective, reliable, and time-saving measurements. Objectives: We aimed to revise the MRVS (MRVS-R) to simplify and standardize the assessment procedure and improve the correlation with the YGTSS-TTS. Methods: We used 102 videos of patients with TS or persistent motor tic disorder filmed according to the MRVS. We compared the tic frequency assessed by MRVS with frequencies according to MRVS-R based on a 5-min (instead of a 10-min) video to investigate whether reducing the recording time leads to significant changes. In addition, we adapted the MRVS to the YGTSS and defined new anchor values for motor and phonic tic frequency based on frequency distributions as assessed in our sample. Finally, we compared the MRVS-R and MRVS regarding psychometric properties and correlation with the YGTSS-TTS. Results: Cutting video recording time in half did not significantly affect assessments of motor and phonic tic frequencies. Psychometric properties were acceptable. Most important, proposed revisions of the MRVS improved correlation with the YGTSS-TTS. Conclusions: The MRVS-R is a simplified version of the MRVS with comparable psychometric qualities, but higher correlations with the YGTSS-TTS.
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.