ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
Exemplifying a measurement validation strategy for rare- and ultra-rare diseases: measuring what matters in alpha-mannosidosis.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcomes assessment in rare and ultra-rare diseases can be hampered by the paucity of condition-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that are known to be reliable, valid, and fit for purpose. It would be helpful to develop a strategy for measuring what matters to patients/caregivers in rare and ultra-rare diseases and for validating this measurement approach even with the constraint of very small samples. The present work aims to propose a measurement strategy that builds on a conceptual measurement model of core concerns in the context of an ultra-rare lysosomal storage disorder, namely Alpha-Mannosidosis (AM). Beginning with a comprehensive literature review of what is known about AM, we identified key domains to be assessed. We drafted items for use in a video-conferenced semi-structured interview to assess symptoms in all of the relevant domains. We then identified generic, validated proxy-reported evaluative tools to assess as many of these domains as possible for use in a web-based survey. Using data collected from caregivers of individuals with AM, we then evaluated aspects of validity of the interview and survey modes of data collection.
resultsThe study sample included 16 AM caregivers reporting on the disease experience of 20 individuals with AM ranging in age from 4 to 49 years old. The new assessment package’s “validation” relied on a more qualitative or visual summary of the many aspects of validity, including content validity, criterion-related validity, known-groups validity, convergent and divergent validity, and longitudinal construct validity (i.e. responsiveness). It integrated information from causal (symptom measures) and effect (evaluative PRO measures) indicators to describe what quality of life concerns are linked to the AM symptom experience. Our approach emphasized effect sizes over p-values.
conclusionsThis study provides a roadmap for creating meaningful outcome assessment in the context of rare and ultra-rare disease. This measurement strategy yielded an empirically-based description of the multidimensional impact of AM and characterized treatment benefits more comprehensively. The new assessment package might be used in longitudinal cohort or registry studies to capture the natural history of this ultra-rare disease, could inform future clinical trials, and capture real-world efficacy outcomes of targeted treatments.
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.