Clinical outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis

This article represents initial deliberation of an international task force appointed by the US National Multiple Sclerosis Society to develop recommendations for optimal clinical assessment tools for multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Presented within this article are the key issues identified by the task force during its initial year of deliberation. These include the precise purpose for a clinical assessment tool, the clinical dimensions to be measured in a multidimensional outcome measure, desirable attributes of an optimal clinical outcome measure, the complexities of multidimensional outcome measures, the relative merits of categorical clinical ratings and quantitative functional assessments, and a number of other important design issues that relate to the use of a multidimensional outcome measure. An action plan for analysis of existing data is summarized, as are the plans for more detailed recommendations from the task force.

[1]  Wilfrid J. Dixons,et al.  Data reduction in large clinical trials , 1974 .

[2]  J. Noseworthy,et al.  Interrater variability with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and Functional Systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial , 1990, Neurology.

[3]  W. Tourtellotte,et al.  QUANTITATIVE CLINICAL NEUROLOGICAL TESTING. I. A STUDY OF A BATTERY OF TESTS DESIGNED TO EVALUATE IN PART THE NEUROLOGICAL FUNCTION OF PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND ITS USE IN A THERAPEUTIC TRIAL * , 1965, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[4]  M. Guttadauria,et al.  Outcome assessment in clinical trials. Evidence for the sensitivity of a health status measure. , 1984, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[5]  P. O'Brien.  Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. , 1984, Biometrics.

[6]  J. Kurtzke.  NEUROLOGIC IMPAIRMENT IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS AND THE DISABILITY STATUS SCALE , 1970, Acta neurologica Scandinavica.

[7]  R. Rudick,et al.  Exacerbation rates and adherence to disease type in a prospectively followed-up population with multiple sclerosis. Implications for clinical trials. , 1989, Archives of neurology.

[8]  W. Arrindell,et al.  A further refinement of the reliable change (RC) index by improving the pre-post difference score: introducing RCID. , 1993, Behaviour research and therapy.

[9]  E. C. Susskind,et al.  Measuring effect magnitude in repeated measures ANOVA designs: implications for gerontological research. , 1980, Journal of gerontology.

[10]  J. Noseworthy.  Clinical scoring methods for multiple sclerosis , 1994, Annals of neurology.

[11]  H. McFarland,et al.  Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis , 1995, Multiple sclerosis.

[12]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Interpretation and power of a pooled index. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[13]  George V. Kondraske,et al.  Neuroperformance Evaluation of Multiple Sclerosis Disease Progression in a Clinical Trial: Implications for Neurological Outcomes , 1993 .

[14]  J. Kurtzke.  Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis , 1983, Neurology.

[15]  C. Granger,et al.  Intramuscular interferon beta‐1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis , 1996, Annals of neurology.

[16]  S. Waltzman,et al.  Use of principal components analysis to develop a composite score as a primary outcome variable in a clinical trial. The VA Cooperative Study Group on Cochlear Implantation. , 1990, Controlled clinical trials.

[17]  R. Knobler,et al.  A neurologic rating scale (NRS) for use in multiple sclerosis , 1984, Neurology.

[18]  J. Gottman,et al.  The analysis of change: issues, fallacies, and new ideas. , 1993, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[19]  A. Thompson,et al.  Evaluating neurological outcome measures : the bare essentials , 2022 .

[20]  S. Ziebland,et al.  Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. , 1992, Quality in health care : QHC.

[21]  R. Roberts.  Pooled outcome measures in arthritis: the pros and cons. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[22]  A. Venot,et al.  Methodological and statistical problems in the construction of composite measurement scales: a survey of six medical and epidemiological journals. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  P. Wood,et al.  The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps of the World Health Organization , 1990 .

[24]  V. Haughton,et al.  Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging with neuropsychological testing in multiple sclerosis , 1989, Neurology.

[25]  J. Kurtzke,et al.  On the evaluation of disability in multiple sclerosis , 1961, Neurology.

[26]  K. Syndulko,et al.  Design strategies in multiple sclerosis clinical trials , 1994 .

[27]  J. W. Rose,et al.  Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing‐remitting multiple sclerosis , 1995, Neurology.

[28]  A. Farrell,et al.  Structural equation modeling with longitudinal data: strategies for examining group differences and reciprocal relationships. , 1994, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[29]  R A Deyo,et al.  Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. , 1986, Journal of chronic diseases.

[30]  A. Thompson,et al.  Major differences in the dynamics of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis , 1991, Annals of neurology.

[31]  Lewis E. Kazis,et al.  Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status , 1989, Medical care.

[32]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.

[33]  M. Chernoff,et al.  Sensitivity to change of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial outcome measures. , 1993, The Journal of rheumatology.

[34]  T. Guthrie,et al.  Influence of temperature changes on multiple sclerosis: critical review of mechanisms and research potential , 1995, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.