↓ Skip to main content

A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools

Overview of attention for article published in Multiple Sclerosis (13524585), July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparative analysis of Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale tools
Published in
Multiple Sclerosis (13524585), July 2016
DOI 10.1177/1352458515616205
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian DE Collins, Ben Ivry, James D Bowen, Eric M Cheng, Ruth Dobson, Douglas S Goodin, Jeannette Lechner-Scott, Ludwig Kappos, Ian Galea

Abstract

Patient-Reported Expanded Disability Status Scale (PREDSS) tools are an attractive alternative to the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) during long term or geographically challenging studies, or in pressured clinical service environments. Because the studies reporting these tools have used different metrics to compare the PREDSS and EDSS, we undertook an individual patient data level analysis of all available tools. Spearman's rho and the Bland-Altman method were used to assess correlation and agreement respectively. A systematic search for validated PREDSS tools covering the full EDSS range identified eight such tools. Individual patient data were available for five PREDSS tools. Excellent correlation was observed between EDSS and PREDSS with all tools. A higher level of agreement was observed with increasing levels of disability. In all tools, the 95% limits of agreement were greater than the minimum EDSS difference considered to be clinically significant. However, the intra-class coefficient was greater than that reported for EDSS raters of mixed seniority. The visual functional system was identified as the most significant predictor of the PREDSS-EDSS difference. This analysis will (1) enable researchers and service providers to make an informed choice of PREDSS tool, depending on their individual requirements, and (2) facilitate improvement of current PREDSS tools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 25%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Unspecified 6 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 4 14%

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 18 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,159,819
of 12,667,869 outputs
Outputs from Multiple Sclerosis (13524585)
#940
of 2,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,159
of 275,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multiple Sclerosis (13524585)
#32
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,667,869 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,393 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 275,038 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.