Cited by 64Multiple Sclerosis Research StudiesCancer survivorship and careBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention

Novel method for measurement of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: Real-Time Digital Fatigue Score

Kim, Edward, Lovera, Jesus, Schaben, Laura, Melara, J., Bourdette, Dennis, Whitham, Ruth·2010·The Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

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

Crossref · 10.1682/jrrd.2009.09.0151

Cites

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.

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?

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