Responsiveness of patient-based and external rating scales in multiple sclerosis: Head-to-head comparison in three clinical settings
Abstract
Background Patient-based rating scales and especially quality of life scales have received increasing attention as secondary outcome measures in multiple sclerosis (MS). Responsiveness to health-related change of quality of life scales is thus an important property when these measures are to be used successfully in clinical trials. Methods We conducted an analysis of 3 cohorts of MS patients to examine responsiveness of the Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire for Multiple Sclerosis (HAQUAMS). One cohort consisted of patients from the outpatient clinic whose overall health status deteriorated over the course of one year (n=53), one study investigated two neurorehabilitation programs (n=20 each) and a third study investigated a low-level aerobic fitness training intervention (n=15). Results The total score of the HAQUAMS and several subscales was found to be responsive in all three settings. In addition, we provide minimally important difference (MID) estimates based on anchor- and distribution-based methods for all scales of the HAQUAMS. Conclusions The HAQUAMS is responsive to change in observational and intervention studies in MS in adequately powered trials.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Hamburg Quality of Life Questionnaire in Multiple Sclerosis is well-validated and exhibits low to moderate sensitivity to change.
“Well-validated, it exhibits low to moderate sensitivity to change.27,28”
From MS quality of life, depression, and fatigue improve after mindfulness training: A randomized trial (2010) · cites this paper as [28]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 27 · Cited by 24
- Authors
- Gold, S. M., Schulz, H., Stein, H., Solf, K., Schulz, K.-H., & Heesen, C.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Venue
- Journal of the Neurological Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-03
- Volume
- 290
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 102-106
- ISSN
- 0022-510X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2133506118
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of the Neurological Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- multiple sclerosis, quality of life scale, responsiveness, minimally important difference, patient-reported outcome measures, neurorehabilitation, health deterioration
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Exercise Therapy, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Patient Compliance, Physical Fitness, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Exercise Tolerance, Disease Progression
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review