ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024
Integration of the expanded disability status scale with ambulation, visual and cognitive tests.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is usually calculated through a neurological examination with self-reported performance. This may lead to incorrect assessment of Functional System scores (FSs). Aim of our study was to estimate the difference between EDSS obtained during routine visits, or after specific tests.
methodsWe enrolled 670 MS patients that underwent a regular neurology consultation, and visual evaluation using optotype tables, ambulation evaluation with a rodometer, and cognitive assessment with the Brief International Cognitive assessment for MS (BICAMS). We calculated a new integrated EDSS (iEDSS) using the refined values of the FS and compared it to the standard EDSS.
resultsVisual, cerebral and ambulation FSs were significantly higher compared with the self-reported counterpart [+ 1.169 (95%CI 1.077, 1.262; p < 0.001), + 0.727 (95%CI 0.653, 0.801; p < 0.001) and + 0.822 (95%CI 0.705, 0.939; p < 0.001), respectively]. Mean iEDSS was higher than EDSS (+ 0.642; p < 0.001). Visual acuity tests worsened the EDSS in 31% of cases, cognitive tests in 10%, ambulation measurement in 35%, all three measurements in 59% of cases.
conclusionsObjective measurement of FSs results in a more accurate EDSS score in almost two-thirds of cases. This could lead to a more thorough evaluation of patients in the transition or progressive phase.
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.