↓ Skip to main content

The Spectrum of Functional Rating Scales in Neurology Clinical Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
The Spectrum of Functional Rating Scales in Neurology Clinical Trials
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13311-016-0488-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pushpa Narayanaswami

Abstract

The selection of an appropriate outcome measure is crucial to the success of a clinical trial, in order to obtain accurate results, which, in turn, influence patient care and future research. Outcomes that can be directly measured are mortality/survival. More frequently, neurology clinical trials evaluate outcomes that cannot be directly measured, such as disability, cognitive function, or change in symptoms of the condition under study. These complex outcomes are abstract ideas or latent constructs and are measured using rating scales. Functional rating scales typically assess the ability of patients to perform tasks and roles for everyday life. Rating scales should be valid (measure what they are supposed to measure), reliable (provide similar results if administered under the same conditions), and responsive (able to detect clinically important changes over time). The clinical relevance of rating scales depends on their ability to detect a minimal clinically important difference, and should be distinguished from statistical significance. Most rating scales are ordinal scales and have limitations. Modern psychometric methods of Rasch analysis and item response theory, termed latent trait theory, are increasingly being utilized to convert ordinal data to interval measurements, both to validate existing scales and to develop new scales. Patient-reported outcomes are being increasingly used in clinical trials and have a role in clinical quality assessment. The PROMIS and NeuroQoL databases are excellent resources for rigorously developed and validated patient-reported outcomes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Psychology 4 11%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 10 28%