RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Responsiveness and meaningful improvement of mobility measures following MS rehabilitation
JF Neurology
JO Neurology
FD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
SP e1880
OP e1892
DO 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006532
VO 91
IS 20
A1 Baert, Ilse
A1 Smedal, Tori
A1 Kalron, Alon
A1 Rasova, Kamila
A1 Heric-Mansrud, Adnan
A1 Ehling, Rainer
A1 Elorriaga Minguez, Iratxe
A1 Nedeljkovic, Una
A1 Tacchino, Andrea
A1 Hellinckx, Peter
A1 Adriaenssens, Greet
A1 Stachowiak, Gosia
A1 Gusowski, Klaus
A1 Cattaneo, Davide
A1 Borgers, Sophie
A1 Hebert, Jeffrey
A1 Dalgas, Ulrik
A1 Feys, Peter
YR 2018
UL http://n.neurology.org/content/91/20/e1880.abstract
AB Objective To determine responsiveness of functional mobility measures, and provide reference values for clinically meaningful improvements, according to disability level, in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) in response to physical rehabilitation.Methods Thirteen mobility measures (clinician- and patient-reported) were assessed before and after rehabilitation in 191 pwMS from 17 international centers (European and United States). Combined anchor- and distribution-based methods were used. A global rating of change scale, from patients' and therapists' perspective, served as external criteria when determining the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), the minimally important change (MIC), and the smallest real change (SRC). Patients were stratified into 2 subgroups based on disability level (Expanded Disability Status Scale score ≤4 [n = 72], >4 [n = 119]).Results The Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale–12, physical subscale of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale–29 (especially for the mildly disabled pwMS), Rivermead Mobility Index, and 5-repetition sit-to-stand test (especially for the moderately to severely disabled pwMS) were the most sensitive measures in detecting improvements in mobility. Findings were determined once the AUC (95% confidence interval) was above 0.5, MIC was greater than SRC, and results were comparable from the patient and therapist perspective.Conclusions Responsiveness, clinically meaningful improvement, and real changes of frequently used mobility measures were calculated, showing great heterogeneity, and were dependent on disability level in pwMS.5STS=5-Repetition Sit-to-Stand Test; ABC=Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale; AUC=area under the curve; BBS=Berg Balance Scale; CI=confidence interval; DGI=Dynamic Gait Index; EDSS=Expanded Disability Status Scale; FSMC=Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive functions; FSST=4-Square Step Test; GRS=global rating of change scale; MDC95=minimal detectable change; MIC=minimally important change; MS=multiple sclerosis; MSIS-29phys=physical subscale of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale–29; MSWS-12=Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale–12; PRO=patient reported outcome; pwMS=people with multiple sclerosis; RE=relative efficiency; RMI=Rivermead Mobility Index; ROC=receiver operating characteristic; SDMT=Symbol Digit Modalities Test; SEM=standard error of measurement; SRC=smallest real change; TIS-modNV=Trunk Impairment Scale–modified Norwegian version; TUG=Timed Up and Go