Are quantitative functional measures more sensitive to worsening MS than traditional measures?

• Published in: Neurology Vol. 55; no. 12; pp. 1901 - 1903
• Main Authors: SCHWID, S. R, GOODMAN, A. D, APATOFF, B. R, COYLE, P. K, JACOBS, L. D, KRUPP, L. B, MILLER, A. E, WENDE, K. E, BROWNSCHEIDLE, C. M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hagerstown, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 26-12-2000
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Humans; Medical sciences; Multiple Sclerosis - physiopathology; Multiple sclerosis and variants. Guillain barré syndrome and other inflammatory polyneuropathies. Leukoencephalitis; Neurology; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Sensitivity and Specificity; Performance evaluation; Human; Progressive; Nervous system diseases; Multiple sclerosis; Secondary; Central nervous system disease; Evolution; Disability Status Scale for Multiple Sclerosis Kurtzke; Inflammatory disease; Quantitative analysis
• ISSN: 0028-3878; 1526-632X
• DOI: 10.1212/WNL.55.12.1901

The authors used data collected prospectively during a multicenter trial in 133 patients with secondary progressive MS to assess the relative sensitivity of quantitative functional tests and traditional measures, including the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Ambulation Index. Quantitative functional measures worsened in 69% of patients during an average of 6 months of observation, whereas the Clinical Global Impression of Change worsened in 33% and the EDSS worsened in 25% of patients. These changes should be interpreted in the context of the test-retest reliability for each measure.