ArticleArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2024
Establishing the Reliability of The Step Test Evaluation of Performance on Stairs (STEPS) in Multiple Sclerosis.
Article in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo establish the inter- and intra-rater reliability of The Step Test Evaluation of Performance on Stairs (STEPS) for people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) and examine its relation to clinical mobility measures, cognition, and activity levels. DESIGN AND
settingSTEPS performance was rated by 3 raters at the initial visit. Two raters observed the STEPS performance via videotape at the initial visit and then 1 week later. Participants also completed in lab clinical mobility tests and cognitive assessments at their initial visit. Activity levels were tracked for the subsequent 6 months.
participantsIn total, 23 people with relapsing-remitting MS (N=23).
interventionsNot applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, while correlation analyses compared STEPS performance with cognition, clinical mobility assessments, and activity levels. The inter-rater reliability analysis among the 3 raters included scoring from only the initial evaluation. For the intra-rater reliability, 2 raters viewed and rated the videotaped session for each of the participants and then repeated the same process 1 week later.
resultsTotal STEPS scores demonstrated excellent agreement by ICC for inter- (ICC=0.97) and intra-rater reliability (ICC>0.95) and significant correlations with established clinical mobility assessments in PwMS. Better performance on STEPS was associated with information processing speed and prospective activity levels in PwMS.
conclusionsStair ambulation is a challenging task, integral for mobility and independence, therefore, having a sensitive and valid reliable assessment of stair performance is critical for PwMS. The STEPS assessment is a quick, easily administered, reliable, and valid tool for assessing stair ambulation in PwMS.
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.