| Title |
NESSCA Validation and Responsiveness of Several Rating Scales in Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 2
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Cerebellum, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12311-017-0855-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thais L. Monte, Estela R. Reckziegel, Marina C. Augustin, Amanda S. P. Silva, Lucas D. Locks-Coelho, Orlando Barsottini, José L. Pedroso, Fernando R. Vargas, Maria-Luiza Saraiva-Pereira, Vanessa Bielefeldt Leotti, Laura Bannach Jardim, on behalf of Rede Neurogenética |
| Abstract |
Spinocerebellar ataxia type 2 (SCA2), caused by a CAG expansion (CAGexp) at ATXN2, has a complex clinical picture. While validated ataxia scales are available, comprehensive instruments to measure all SCA2 neurological manifestations are required. This study aims to validate the Neurological Examination Score for the assessment of Spinocerebellar Ataxias (NESSCA) to be used in SCA2 and to compare its responsiveness to those obtained with other instruments. NESSCA, SARA, SCAFI, and CCFS scales were applied in symptomatic SCA2 patients. Correlations were done with age at onset, disease duration, CAGexp, and between scales. Responsiveness was estimated by comparing deltas of stable to worse patients after 12 months, according to Patient Global Impression of change, and the area under the curve (AUC) of the Receiver Operating Characteristics curve of scores range. Eighty-eight evaluations (49 patients) were obtained. NESSCA had an even distribution and correlated with disease duration (r = 0.55), SARA (r = 0.63), and CAGexp (rho = 0.32): both explained 44% of NESSCA variance. Deltas (95% CI) after 1 year in stable and worse patients were only significantly different for SARA. NESSCA, SARA, SCAFI, and CCFS AUC were 0.63, 0.81, 0.49, and 0.48, respectively. NESSCA is valid to be used in SCA2. However, the only instrument that presented good responsiveness to change in 1 year was SARA. We suggest that NESSCA can be used as a secondary outcome in future trials in SCA2 due to the burden of neurological disabilities related to disease progression. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 4 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2017.
All research outputs
#19,495,804
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#659
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,012
of 314,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.