| Title |
Ataxia Rating Scales—Psychometric Profiles, Natural History and Their Application in Clinical Trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Cerebellum, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12311-011-0316-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonas Alex Morales Saute, Karina Carvalho Donis, Carmen Serrano-Munuera, David Genis, Luís Torres Ramirez, Pilar Mazzetti, Luis Velázquez Pérez, Pilar Latorre, Jorge Sequeiros, Antoni Matilla-Dueñas, Laura Bannach Jardim, On behalf of the Iberoamerican Multidisciplinary Network for the Study of Movement Disorders (RIBERMOV) Study Group |
| Abstract |
We aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the existing ataxia scales. We described the disorders for which the instruments have been validated and used, the time spent in its application, its validated psychometric properties, and their use in studies of natural history and clinical trials. A search from 1997 onwards was performed in the MEDLINE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases. The web sites ClinicalTrials.gov and Orpha.net were also used to identify the endpoints used in ongoing randomized clinical trials. We identified and described the semiquantitative ataxia scales (ICARS, SARA, MICARS, BARS); semiquantitative ataxia and non-ataxia scales (UMSARS, FARS, NESSCA); a semiquantitative non-ataxia scale (INAS); quantitative ataxia scales (CATSYS 2000, AFCS, CCFS and CCFSw, and SCAFI); and the self-performed ataxia scale (FAIS). SARA and ICARS were the best studied and validated so far, and their reliability sustain their use. Ataxia and non-ataxia scores will probably provide a better view of the overall disability in long-term trials and studies of natural history. Up to now, no clear advantage has been disclosed for any of them; however, we recommend the use of specific measurements of gait since gait ataxia is the first significant manifestation in the majority of ataxia disorders and comment on the best scales to be used in specific ataxia forms. Quantitative ataxia scales will be needed to speed up evidence from phase II clinical trials, from trials focused on the early phase of diseases, and for secondary endpoints in phase III trials. Finally, it is worth remembering that estimation of the actual minimal clinically relevant difference is still lacking; this, together with changes in quality of life, will probably be the main endpoints to measure in future therapeutic studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 153 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 23% |
| Unknown | 32 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 8% |
| Engineering | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 18 | 11% |
| Unknown | 41 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,459,495
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#147
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,173
of 135,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 135,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.