ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2025
Tele-assessment in limb-girdle muscular dystrophy: feasibility and reliability of patient-led asynchronous method.
Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the feasibility and reliability of the six assessment tools commonly used in limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) for patient-led asynchronous method: Brooke Scale, Vignos Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS-Pain), Modified Barthel Index (MBI), and Nottingham Health Profile (NHP).
methodsThis study included 40 individuals with LGMD (55% female; mean age = 30.53 ± 9.68 years). The assessment tools used in the study were initially completed by the participants using the patient-led asynchronous method and one week later using the clinician-led synchronous method. Google Forms was utilized for the patient-led asynchronous method, and ZoomTM was used for the clinician-led synchronous method. Furthermore, a questionnaire created by the researchers was administered to assess the satisfaction and usefulness of the procedures of both tele-assessment methods.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the total scores of the six assessment tools obtained by both methods (p's > 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) exhibited excellent reliability for the total scores of the FSS (ICC = 0.91), MBI (ICC = 0.92), and NHP (ICC = 0.87). Weighted kappa (κw) showed excellent reliability for the Brooke Scale (κw = 0.94) and Vignos Scale (κw = 0.94), and good reliability for the NRS-Pain (κw = 0.63). The questionnaire conducted on the satisfaction and usefulness of the procedure of tele-assessment methods showed significantly greater overall satisfaction with the clinician-led synchronous method (p = 0.009).
conclusionIn individuals with LGMD, the six assessment tools were feasible and reliable when utilized with the patient-led asynchronous method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40366493What 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.