ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness of the MRC Prion Disease Rating Scale.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Medical Research Council-Prion Disease Rating Scale (MRC-PDRS) is a 20-point clinician-reported outcome scale to assess disease progression in patients with prion disease, an invariably fatal neurodegenerative disease caused by misfolded prion protein. This study aims to evaluate the measurement properties and interpretability of the MRC-PDRS to support the measure's use for effective disease management and research evaluating effectiveness of treatment options for prion diseases. METHODOLOGY: Utilizing patient data from the Telemedicine Assessment Program for CJD (TAPCJD), statistical assessment was conducted of internal consistency, construct validity (including convergent, divergent validity, and known-groups discriminant validity), responsiveness, and interpretation guidelines using distribution-based approaches to estimate thresholds indicating minimal important change (MIC) in MRC-PDRS scores. Criterion measures used for evaluating construct validity and responsiveness included the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q). RESULTS/
conclusionsThese findings provide strong preliminary evidence that the MRC-PDRS is reliable, valid, and responsive as a tool for measuring disease progression in patients with prion disease, with preliminary MIC estimates ranging from 1 to 3 points. This supports the use of MRC-PDRS in evaluating potential treatment benefits of prion disease clinical trials, and potentially in clinical practice settings.
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.