ArticleIrish journal of medical science2026
Psychometric evaluation of the L Test for functional mobility across EDSS-based severity levels in multiple sclerosis.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFunctional mobility impairment is common in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and affects daily functioning.
aimThe present study aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the L Test, a measure commonly used to assess functional mobility, across different levels of disease severity in individuals with MS.
methodsA total of 35 individuals with clinically confirmed MS and Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores ranging from 0-3.5 were recruited. Participants with EDSS scores between 0 and 1.5 were assigned to Group 1, while those with scores between 2-3.5 constituted Group 2. To determine inter-rater reliability, the L Test was administered on the same day by two independent physiotherapists.
resultsGroup 1 comprised 17 participants with a mean age of 40.82 ± 13.62 years, while Group 2 included 18 participants with a mean age of 48.44 ± 8.89 years. The test-retest reliability of the L Test was excellent, with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.999-1.000). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that the L Test had a very high discriminative ability in differentiating between the two groups (AUC = 0.997). Correlation analyses revealed a strong, positive, and statistically significant relationship between the L Test and the TUG Test in both groups (Group 1: r = 0.712, p = 0.001; Group 2: r = 0.856, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe findings indicate that the L Test is a valid and reliable tool for assessing functional mobility in individuals with MS presenting with varying functional levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42183986What 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.