Novel method for measurement of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: Real-Time Digital Fatigue Score
Abstract
The study's objective was to develop a real-time measurement for fatigue and to evaluate whether it is an effective clinical trial outcome measure compared with the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Forty-nine subjects with MS and an FSS >4 recorded Real-Time Digital Fatigue Scores (RDFSs) on a wrist-worn device four times a day over 3 weeks. Scores were scaled 0-10, with 10 representing the worst possible fatigue. FSS and MFIS were evaluated and compared with RDFSs. Mean RDFSs significantly correlated with FSS (r = 0.55, p < 0.001) and MFIS (r = 0.55, p < 0.001). RDFS captured circadian variations in fatigue, with scores increasing from mean 3.4 at 9 a.m., to 4.0 at 1 p.m., 4.5 at 5 p.m., and 5.0 at 9 p.m. When all scores over all days were included in a mixed-model analysis of circadian variation, the differences in RDFS between times were more significant than in an analysis that included only single scores of data isolated from the first day of monitoring. RDFS is a promising measure. RDFS significantly correlated with FSS and MFIS, captured real-time daily and circadian variations in fatigue, and provided multiple measurements of fatigue that provided statistical advantages over FSS and MFIS.
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 single-item measures used to assess momentary symptoms have not been validated.
“Use of single item measures that have not been validated to assess momentary symptoms is a limitation of this study.”
From Ecological momentary assessment of pain, fatigue, depressive, and cognitive symptoms reveals significant daily variability in multiple sclerosis (2017) · cites this paper as [33]
There are no standard, validated ecological momentary assessment measures of the symptoms examined in this study.
“to our knowledge there are no standard, validated EMA measures of the symptoms examined in this study.”
From Ecological momentary assessment of pain, fatigue, depressive, and cognitive symptoms reveals significant daily variability in multiple sclerosis (2017) · cites this paper as [33]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 13 · Cited by 64
- Authors
- Kim, E., Lovera, J., Schaben, L., Melara, J., Bourdette, D., & Whitham, R.
- Affiliations
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Louisiana State University (US)
- Venue
- The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 477
- ISSN
- 0742-3241 (ISSN-L)
- 0748-7711
- OpenAlex
- W2111565716
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 1.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Center for Research Resources (M01RR000334, UL1RR024140)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Multiple Sclerosis Research Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
- Keywords
- multiple sclerosis, fatigue, wrist-worn devices, circadian variation, Fatigue Severity Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, wearable monitoring
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Circadian Rhythm, Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Monitoring, Ambulatory
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