ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2024
Item performance of the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia in rare and ultra-rare genetic ataxias.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Modeling of Digital-Motor and Clinician-Reported Outcomes Using Item Response Theory: Towards Powerful Trials for Rare Neurological Diseases.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Observational
- Spastic Ataxia Composite (SPAXCOM): A Scale to Evaluate the Progression of Subjects with Spasticity and Ataxia.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025Article
- Comparing randomized trial designs to estimate treatment effect in rare diseases with longitudinal models: a simulation study showcased by Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias using the SARA score.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Item performance of the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia in rare and ultra-rare genetic ataxias.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) is widely used for assessing the severity and progression of genetic cerebellar ataxias. SARA is now considered a primary end point in several ataxia treatment trials, but its underlying composite item measurement model has not yet been tested. This work aimed to evaluate the composite properties of SARA and its items using item response theory (IRT) and to demonstrate its applicability across even ultra-rare genetic ataxias. Leveraging SARA subscores data from 1932 visits from 990 patients of the Autosomal Recessive Cerebellar Ataxias (ARCA) registry, we assessed the performance of SARA using IRT methodology. The item characteristics were evaluated over the ataxia severity range of the entire ataxia population as well as the assessment validity across 115 genetic ARCA subpopulations. A unidimensional IRT model was able to describe SARA item data, indicating that SARA captures one single latent variable. All items had high discrimination values (1.5-2.9) indicating the effectiveness of the SARA in differentiating between subjects with different disease statuses. Each item contributed between 7% and 28% of the total assessment informativeness. There was no evidence for differences between the 115 genetic ARCA subpopulations in SARA applicability. These results show the good discrimination ability of SARA with all of its items adding informational value. The IRT framework provides a thorough description of SARA on the item level, and facilitates its utilization as a clinical outcome assessment in upcoming longitudinal natural history or treatment trials, across a large number of ataxias, including ultra-rare ones.
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.