4.4 Article

Comparison of Different Symptom Assessment Scales for Multiple System Atrophy

期刊

CEREBELLUM
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 190-200

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12311-015-0686-4

关键词

Multiple system atrophy; Standardized response mean; Symptom assessment scale; Short-term change; Sample size

资金

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [27280401]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To identify the most sensitive scale for use in clinical trials on multiple system atrophy (MSA), a short and sensitive scale is needed for MSA clinical trials. Potential candidates are the Unified MSA Rating Scale (UMSARS), Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), MSA Health-Related Quality of Life scale (MSA-QoL), and Scales for Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease-Autonomic questionnaire (SCOPA-AUT). We enrolled patients with MSA from eight hospitals in Hokkaido, Japan. Board-certified neurologists assessed each patient at 6-month intervals and scored them on the UMSARS, SARA, BBS, MSA-QoL, and SCOPA-AUT. Score changes were evaluated using the standardized response mean (SRM). The correlation between disease duration and each score was examined. The first evaluation was conducted on 85 patients (60 patients with MSA cerebellar ataxia dominant subtype [MSA-C] and 25 patients with MSA Parkinsonism-dominant subtype [MSA-P]). Sixty-nine patients were examined after 6 months and 63 patients after 12 months. The UMSARS Part 4 had the largest SRM after 6 months and the SARA after 12 months. SRMs for MSA-P, the shorter duration group, and the early-onset group were larger than were those for MSA-C, the longer duration group, and the late-onset group. SRMs for items regarding skilled hand activities, walking, and standing were relatively large. Our study indicates that the UMSARS (parts 2 and 4), SARA, and BBS are sensitive scales for evaluating MSA progression over 12 months. Items with large SRMs effectively evaluated short-term changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据