3.8 Article

Online assessment of ALS functional rating scale compares well to in-clinic evaluation: A prospective trial

Journal

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 210-216

Publisher

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.3109/17482968.2011.633268

Keywords

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; ALS Functional Rating Scale; ALSFRS-R; online self-assessment; patient reported outcomes

Funding

  1. Institute of Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology
  2. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
  3. AirBerlin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Self-assessment of symptom progression in chronic diseases is of increasing importance in clinical research, patient management and specialized outpatient care. Against this background, we developed a secure internet platform (ALShome. de) that allows online assessment of the revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and other established self-assessment questionnaires. We developed a secure and closed internet portal to assess patient reported outcomes. In a prospective, controlled and stratified study, patients conducted a web-based self-assessment of ALSFRS-R compared to on-site assessment. On-site and online assessments were compared at baseline (n = 127) and after 3.5 months (n = 81, 64%). Results showed that correlation between on-site evaluation and online testing of ALSFRS-R was highly significant (r = 0.96; p < 0.001). The agreement of both capturing methods (online vs. on-site) was excellent (mean interval, 8.8 days). The adherence to online rating was high; 75% of patients tested on-site completed a follow-up online visit (mean 3.5 months, SD 1.7). We conclude that online self-assessment of ALS severity complements the well-established face-to-face application of the ALSFRS-R during on-site visits. The results of our study support the use of online administration of ALSFRS-R within clinical trials and for managing the care of ALS patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available