ArticleJournal of neurology2025
Scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia: a live e-version.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-dependent uncoupling of the co-chaperone and E3 ubiquitin ligase CHIP underlies heterogeneity in spinocerebellar ataxia 48.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2026Article
- Integrating remote testing and machine learning to identify markers of cerebellar ataxia at home.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Walking as a Window to the Brain: Redefining Gait in Neurology.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impulsivity in cerebellar ataxia: an online, multidimensional assessment.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Article
- Characterizing motor-cognitive associations in Parkinson's disease using digital assessments.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Perceived social support in the daily life of people with Parkinson's disease: a distinct role and potential classifier.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Breaking geographic and language barriers in neuropsychology: online administration of MoCA in diverse populations.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring ataxia severity is primarily conducted in-person using tests such as the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA). However, given the motor and cognitive impairments of people with cerebellar ataxia (PwA), there are major limitations in ensuring the assessment is accessible and scalable. We aimed to develop and validate a novel test, enabling the remote assessment of ataxia severity, SARA-Le (SARA Live e-version).
methodsSARA-Le is a structured step-by-step test for administering the SARA through video conferencing. In two experiments, we administered SARA-Le to 106 PwA. In Experiment 1 (n = 23), we assessed concurrent validity by comparing SARA-Le and in-person SARA scores administered by an independent neurologist. In addition, we evaluated associations between nine gait measures and both SARA and SARA-Le scores. In Experiment 2 (n = 83), we assessed the efficacy, internal consistency, and correlations between SARA-Le and other related measures.
resultsFirst, we found a high correlation (r = 0.89, P = 0.001) between SARA-Le and in-person SARA scores, supporting convergent validity. Second, SARA-Le and SARA scores were both similarly associated with the nine gait measures, supporting construct validity. Third, SARA-Le's Cronbach's alpha was very high (0.831), supporting internal consistency. Fourth, SARA-Le scores exhibited a positive correlation with disease duration (r = 0.44, P < 0.001), and a negative correlation with MoCA scores (r = - 0.27, P = 0.007), supporting construct validity.
conclusionsSARA-Le can serve as a remote technology-based protocol, improving the accessibility and scalability of ataxia severity evaluation.
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.