ArticleCerebellum (London, England)2025
The Goal Attainment Scale in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 3: Exploration of Feasibility and Content Validity.
Article in Cerebellum (London, England), 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
Abstract
Progress in therapeutic development in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3 (SCA3) underscores the need for trial readiness and outcome measures that accurately reflect patient-relevant disease progression. The Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) has been proposed to capture interindividual variability within a unified, patient-centered metric. However, concerns about its feasibility and clinimetric properties have limited its use in clinical trials so far. This exploratory study assesses the feasibility and content validity of the GAS interview in SCA3. The GAS interview was conducted by a single assessor in 15 SCA3 patients at varying disease stages. Feasibility metrics and the content of goals, categorized according to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) domains, were evaluated. For each patient, at least three goals were successfully set within the planned timeframe, averaging 9.2 min per goal. The presence of a caregiver was considered important for ensuring goal quality in patients with severe cognitive impairment. Most goals were related to balance issues (30.2%), followed by coordination of limb movements (11.1%) and visual function (11.1%). Balance-related goals were consistently ranked as most important by patients across all disease stages. Our findings support the feasibility and content validity of the GAS interview in SCA3, with goal content deemed relevant from both patient and clinician perspectives. The next step is to implement the GAS in a trial setting, accompanied by an evaluation of its clinimetric properties within that context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41273626What 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.