Cited by 182Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMedical Practices and Rehabilitation

Self-administered Expanded Disability Status Scale with functional system scores correlates well with a physician-administered test

Bowen, James, Gibbons, Laura, Gianas, Ann, Kraft, George H·2001·Multiple Sclerosis Journal

Abstract

Background Patient-administered measures are needed to assess disability cost-effectively in large epidemiological studies. Setting An outpatient clinic in a large multiple sclerosis center. Methods A self-administered EDSS questionnaire was developed (EDSS-S). Consecutive patients with clinically definite multiple sclerosis completed the EDSS-S (n=95). During the same visit, a physician completed an EDSS (EDSS-P). Scores below 4.0 were determined using functional system (FS) scores. Scores above 4.0 were calculated by two methods, using gait alone and using gait and functional system scores combined. Results EDSS-P scores ranged from 0-9.5 (mean 5.1, median 5.0, 78% female, age 17-78, mean age 45). Mean EDSS-P, EDSS-S and intraclass correlation coefficients of agreement were: EDSS using ambulation alone (4.6, 5.1, 0.89), EDSS using ambulation and FS scores (4.6, 5.3, 0.87), bowel/bladder FS scores (1.6, 1.7, 0.79), pyramidal FS scores (2.1, 2.4, 0.67), sensory FS scores (1.6, 2.1, 0.60), cerebellar FS scores (1.1, 1.6, 0.55), brainstem FS scores (0.5, 1.2, 0.45), vision FS scores (1.9, 1.3, 0.38), cerebral FS scores (0.6, 2.3, 0.27). Conclusions Very good correlation was seen between patient and physician scores for EDSS and the bowel/bladder FS score. Four other FS scores correlated moderately. In general, patients scored themselves more disabled than physicians.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/135245850100700311

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowen, J., Gibbons, L., Gianas, A., & Kraft, G. H.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Multiple Sclerosis Journal
Published
2001-06
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
201-206
ISSN
  • 1352-4585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0970
OpenAlex
W1973096010
Cited by
182
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multiple Sclerosis Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
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
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
Keywords
Expanded Disability Status Scale, multiple sclerosis, patient-physician agreement, ambulation, bowel and bladder dysfunction, pyramidal signs, gait, disability assessment
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cognition, Disability Evaluation, Female, Gait, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Outpatients, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Vision, Ocular

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