ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2023
An Empirical Comparison of Commonly Used Universal Rating Scales for Dystonia.
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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pallidal Deep Brain Stimulation in Dystonia: Investigating Differential Response by Dystonia Distribution.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Blood-Based Proteomics for Adult-Onset Focal Dystonias.Annals of neurology · 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
18 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background: There are several widely used clinical rating scales for documenting the severity and distribution of various types of dystonia. Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the performance of the most commonly used scales in a large group of adults with the most common types of isolated dystonia. Methods: Global Dystonia Rating Scale (GDRS) and the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale (BFM) scores were obtained for 3067 participants. Most had focal or segmental dystonia, with smaller numbers of multifocal or generalized dystonia. These scales were also compared for 209 adults with cervical dystonia that had Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) scores and 210 adults with blepharospasm that had Blepharospasm Severity Scale (BSRS) scores. Results: There were strong correlations between the GDRS and BFM total scores ( Conclusions: The BFM is more widely used than the GDRS, but these results suggest the GDRS may be preferable for focal and segmental dystonias. The overabundance of very low scores for both scales highlights challenges associated with discriminating very mild dystonia from other abnormal movements or variants of normal behavior.
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.