ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Convergent validity, responsiveness, and meaningful within-subject change of the PROM-Ataxia in spinocerebellar ataxias.
Article in Journal of neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe clinimetric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia (PROM-Ataxia) have only been partially explored. This study aimed to investigate its convergent validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), as well as its discriminative ability at the earliest disease stages in different types of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA).
methodsBaseline and 1 year PROM-Ataxia data were obtained from three single-center cohort studies involving ataxic and pre-ataxic SCA1, SCA3, and SCA7 mutation carriers and healthy controls. Spearman correlations were assessed between PROM-Ataxia scores and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia, Inventory of Non-Ataxia Signs, SCA Functional Index, Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale, 5-level EuroQoL 5-Dimensional Visual Analogue Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Unified Huntington Disease Rating Scale Part IV, and the Activities of Daily Living subscale of the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale. Responsiveness was evaluated using standardized response means (SRM), and MCIDs through anchor-based and distribution-based approaches.
resultsSeventy-six mutation carriers (20 SCA1, 40 SCA3, 16 SCA7) were included at baseline, with 68 completing the 1-year follow-up visit. PROM-Ataxia scores correlated moderately to strongly with other measures (ρ=0.46-0.89, p<0.001) and differentiated pre-ataxic individuals from healthy controls (p<0.001). Over one year, PROM-Ataxia demonstrated a gradual average increase (+ 3.9, p=0.048) with considerable between-subject variability of change (SD=22.0) and low responsiveness (SRM=0.17). The MCID of the PROM-Ataxia total score was estimated at 9.8-12.7.
conclusionPROM-Ataxia already distinguishes pre-ataxic SCA mutation carriers from healthy controls in physical, ADL, and mental health domains, and demonstrates strong convergent validity. Although responsiveness at the group level was somewhat limited because of large interindividual variability, 1 year follow-up scores adequately reflected the individual patient's global impression of change.
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.