ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2023
Study to Assess Content Validity and Interrater and Intrarater Reliability of the Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the response to placebo in clinical trials of inclusion body myositis.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatments in inclusion body myositis: a systematic review.RMD open · 2025Pooled it
- Assessment of IBM-FRS total score and specific functional domains in a large cohort of inclusion body myositis patients.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Testing the Validity and Reliability of a Standardized Virtual Examination for Concussion.Neurology. 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Sporadic inclusion body myositis (IBM) is a rare, muscle-wasting disease that negatively affects health-related quality of life. Although a measure that has been developed to assess the impact of IBM, the IBM Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS) has limited evidence of content validity or reliability, and what constitutes a meaningful change threshold; this study was conducted to address these gaps. Methods: Adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of IBM from the United Kingdom and disease area expert health care professionals from the United States and United Kingdom took part in this study. This study consisted of 5 stages including phone interviews (physicians), face-to-face interviews (patients), face-to-face ratings, phone ratings, and ratings of videos using the IBMFRS. Results: The IBMFRS adequately captures all core functional impacts of IBM, which was corroborated by both patient participants and physicians when debriefing the measure. Physicians and patient participants all thought any change on the measure would be meaningful change for a patient, either improvement or worsening. The quantitative analysis demonstrated good interrater reliability for face-to-face ratings (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] >0.7) and for video ratings (ICC >0.9). Intrarater reliability was excellent for face-to-face and video ratings (ICC >0.9). Equivalence between the modes of administration, face-to-face vs phone, was also excellent (ICC >0.9). Discussion: The IBMFRS is content valid in assessing the key functional impacts of IBM, and any change would be meaningful. It is reliable both within and across raters, and there is equivalence between different modes of administration (face-to-face vs phone).
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.