The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inter‐ and intrarater scoring agreement using grades 1.0 to 3.5 of the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)
Abstract
We determined inter- and intrarater Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scoring agreement for four trained examining physicians who evaluated 10 clinically stable multiple sclerosis patients. These patients had previously been determined to have EDSS scores of 1.0 to 3.5 and were scheduled to participate in a funded clinical trial of intramuscular recombinant interferon-beta. Intrarater reliability was greater than interrater reliability for scoring the EDSS and all of its component functional systems scores (FSS). Specifically, individual examiners were able to reproduce three serial examination scores on the same patient on the same day (intrarater agreement) within 1.0 EDSS or 2.0 individual FSS points. Reproducible scoring across examiners (interrater agreement), however, could only be accomplished within 1.5 EDSS or 3.0 individual FSS points. Additionally, the interrater scoring variability in our patients is greater than that previously reported for patients with higher EDSS scores. We conclude that clinical trials that employ the EDSS as an outcome measure of treatment efficacy should include inter- and intrarater agreement data for all examining physicians. Most importantly, studies using a single examining physician to evaluate individual patients throughout the course of a clinical trial will require less change in the EDSS to reliably measure disease activity than will studies using more than one examining physician to evaluate individual patients throughout the trial.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Fatigue in multiple sclerosis and its relationship to depression and neurologic disability
Bakshi, R., Shaikh, Z. A., Miletich, R. S., Czarnecki, D., Dmochowski, J., Henschel, K., Janardhan, V, Dubey, N., & Kinkel, P. R. (2000) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/135245850000600308 · Cited by 480
Hohol, M. J., Orav, E. J., & Weiner, H. L. (1999) · Multiple Sclerosis Journal · doi:10.1177/135245859900500508 · Cited by 369
Cohen, J. A., Reingold, S. C., Polman, C. H., & Wolinsky, J. S. (2012) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70059-5 · Cited by 233
Diagnosis and Management of Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Macaron, G., & Ontaneda, D. (2019) · Biomedicines · doi:10.3390/biomedicines7030056 · Cited by 70
Tilling, K., Lawton, M., Robertson, N., Tremlett, H., Zhu, F., Harding, K., Oger, J., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2016) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta20810 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Goodkin, D. E., Cookfair, D., Wende, K., Bourdette, D., Pullicino, P., Scherokman, B., & Whitham, R.
- Venue
- Neurology
- Published
- 1992-04
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 859-859
- ISSN
- 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-632X
- OpenAlex
- W2090718971
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inter‐ and intrarater scoring agreement using grades 1.0 to 3.5 of the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.42.4.859
- The paper
- Goodkin, D. E., Cookfair, D., Wende, K., Bourdette, D., Pullicino, P., Scherokman, B., & Whitham, R. (1992). Inter‐ and intrarater scoring agreement using grades 1.0 to 3.5 of the Kurtzke Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.42.4.859
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.