4.4 Article

Identification and validation of clinically meaningful benchmarks in the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale

期刊

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 1405-1414

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458516680749

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; outcome research; clinically meaningful; MSWS; walking impairment

资金

  1. Biogen Idec
  2. ziMS Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (12-MSWS) is a validated questionnaire which assessed walking function; it has been widely adopted in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical research. Objective: Identify and validate clinically meaningful 12-MSWS benchmarks in MS. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 159 MS patients permitted identification of clinically meaningful 12-MSWS benchmarks based on their relationship to real-life anchors. Identified 12-MSWS benchmarks were then validated in a second population of 96 subjects using measures of ambulation, cognition, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: 12-MSWS score of 0-24.99 was associated with working outside the home and assistance-free mobility; 25-49.99 was associated with gait disability and difficulty doing housework; 50-74.99 was associated with unemployment, government healthcare, cane use, and difficulty performing instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs); and 75-100 was associated with change in occupation due to walking, mobility impairment requiring bilateral assistance, and inability to perform IADLs. During the validation step, strong linear associations were identified between 12-MSWS benchmarks and other MS-related disability outcome measures, including ambulatory and non-ambulatory measures. Conclusion: We have identified clinically meaningful 12-MSWS benchmarks which define four groups differentiated by increasing levels of mobility impairment and associated loss of functional independence. These data provide insight into how 12-MSWS translate to meaningful functional limitations in MS.

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