Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations
- PMID: 18031706
- DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(07)70290-9
Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations
Erratum in
- Lancet Neurol. 2008 Jan;7(1):25
Abstract
Have state-of-the-art clinical trials failed to deliver treatments for neurodegenerative diseases because of shortcomings in the rating scales used? This Review assesses two methodological limitations of rating scales that might help to answer this question. First, the numbers generated by most rating scales do not satisfy the criteria for rigorous measurements. Second, we do not really know which variables most rating scales measure. We use clinical examples to highlight concerns about the limitations of rating scales, examine their underlying rationales, clarify their implications, explore potential solutions, and make some recommendations for future research. We show that improvements in the scientific rigour of rating scales can improve the chances of reaching the correct conclusions about the effectiveness of treatments.
Similar articles
-
Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.Pain. 2006 Dec 5;125(3):208-215. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.09.028. Epub 2006 Oct 25. Pain. 2006. PMID: 17069973 No abstract available.
-
Clinical effectiveness: an approach to clinical trial design more relevant to clinical practice, acknowledging the importance of individual differences.Pain. 2010 May;149(2):173-176. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.08.007. Epub 2009 Sep 11. Pain. 2010. PMID: 19748185 Review. No abstract available.
-
Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.Pain. 2005 Jan;113(1-2):9-19. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012. Pain. 2005. PMID: 15621359 Review. No abstract available.
-
Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials.J Nucl Med. 2006 Jun;47(6):1059-66. J Nucl Med. 2006. PMID: 16741317 No abstract available.
-
Reply to Drs. Olanow and Rascol.Neurology. 2010 Apr 6;74(14):1151. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181d7d93b. Neurology. 2010. PMID: 20368636 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
Rasch analysis of clinical outcome measures in spinal muscular atrophy.Muscle Nerve. 2014 Mar;49(3):422-30. doi: 10.1002/mus.23937. Epub 2013 Jul 26. Muscle Nerve. 2014. PMID: 23836324 Free PMC article.
-
What sample sizes for reliability and validity studies in neurology?J Neurol. 2012 Dec;259(12):2681-94. doi: 10.1007/s00415-012-6570-y. Epub 2012 Jun 24. J Neurol. 2012. PMID: 22729386 Clinical Trial.
-
Measuring outcomes in Parkinson's disease: a multi-perspective concept mapping study.Qual Life Res. 2012 Apr;21(3):453-63. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9995-3. Epub 2011 Aug 26. Qual Life Res. 2012. PMID: 21870190
-
Assessment of Multiple Aspects of Upper Extremity Function Independent From Ambulation in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis.Int J MS Care. 2023 Sep-Oct;25(5):226-232. doi: 10.7224/1537-2073.2021-069. Epub 2023 Sep 14. Int J MS Care. 2023. PMID: 37720262 Free PMC article.
-
Neurocognitive testing in late-onset Tay-Sachs disease: a pilot study.J Inherit Metab Dis. 2008 Aug;31(4):518-23. doi: 10.1007/s10545-008-0884-z. Epub 2008 May 30. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2008. PMID: 18618288
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical