ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025
Validity and Reliability of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multisystem Proteinopathy 1.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2025. 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.
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveValosin-containing protein (VCP)-associated multisystem proteinopathy 1 (MSP1) is caused by variants in the VCP gene. MSP1 results in various phenotypes including progressive myopathy, Paget's disease of bone, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and parkinsonism, among others. Our study aimed to validate functional clinical outcome assessments (COA) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to inform clinical care practices and future clinical trial design. In addition, we evaluated the test-retest reliability of these COAs within clinics and remote environments.
methodsPatients completed a battery of COA and PRO across a 2-day traditional onsite visit and a 2-day remote visit within their home environment. All COA and PRO deemed safe and feasible to complete based on participants' level of function and/or home environment were collected at each visit.
resultsForty-six total patients enrolled in our study, 34 in our full study and 12 in an expanded remote-only cohort. Functional COA measured decline over reported disease duration in this cross-sectional group and significantly correlated with PRO (rho > 0.5, p < 0.001). Differences in lower and upper extremity involvement were noted across variant groups. Performance of functional COA was reliable and safe within and across onsite and remote testing environments (ICC > 0.7, p < 0.001).
interpretationFunctional COA and PRO are valid and reliable to measure abilities in participants with MSP1. Testing can be completed reliably within the home, which could expand equitable access to clinical care and/or future clinical trial participation. Prospective longitudinal data collection is ongoing to understand outcome sensitivity and meaningful change over time.
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.