Clinical outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis

Annals of Neurology

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 469-479

  Rudick, Richard ^a   Antel, Jack ^b   Confavreux, Christian ^c   Cutter, Gary ^d   Ellison, George ^e   Fischer, Jill ^a   Lublin, Fred ^f   Miller, Aaron ^g   Petkau, John ^h   Rao, Stephen ⁱ   Reingold, Stephen ^j   Syndulko, Karl ^k   Thompson, Alan ^l   Wallenberg, Joy ^m   Weinshenker, Brian ⁿ   Willoughby, Ernest ^o  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c Hopital de l'Antiquaille   (France)

^d AMC Cancer Research Foundation   (United States)

^e UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

ⁱ MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN   (United States)

^j National Multiple Sclerosis Society   (United States)

^k VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^m BAYER AG   (Germany)

ⁿ MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^o Aukland Hospital   (New Zealand)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MEASUREMENT; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 9544238232     PISSN: 03645134     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ana.410400321     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Weinshenker BG. Clinical outcome measures for multiple sclerosis. In: Goodkin DE, Rudick RA, eds. Multiple sclerosis: advances in clinical trial design, treatment, and future perspectives. London: Springer, 1996 (in press)
2. Whitaker JN, McFarland HF, Rudge P, Reingold SC. Outcomes assessment in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: a critical analysis. Multiple Sclerosis 1995;1:37-47
3. Munsat TL, Subcommittee on motor neuron diseases of the World Federation of Neurology research group on neuromuscular diseases, Airlie House "Therapeutic trials in ALS" workshop contributors. Airlie House guidelines. Therapeutic trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 1995;129:1-10
4. Guyatt GH, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:171-178
5. Fitzpatrick R, Ziebland S, Jenkinson C, Mowat A. Importance of sensitivity to change as a criterion for selecting health status measures. Qual Health Care 1992;1:89-93
6. The IFNB Multiple Sclerosis Study Group. Interferon β 1b is effective in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. I. Clinical results of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 1993;43:655-661
7. Jacobs LD, Cookfair DL, Rudick RA, et al. Intramuscular interferon beta-1a for disease progression in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1996;39:285-294
8. Johnson KP, Brooks BR, Ford CC, et al. Copolymer 1 reduces relapse rate and improves disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: results of a phase III multicenter, double-blind, placebo controlled trial. Neurology 1995;45:1268-1276
9. Kurtzke JF. On the evaluation of disability evaluation in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1961;11:686-694
10. Henderson WG, Fisher SG, Cohen N, et al, VA Cooperative Study Group on Cochlear Implantation. Use of principal components analysis to develop a composite score as a primary outcome variable in a clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 1990; 11:199-214
11. Kurtzke JF. Neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis and the disability status scale. Acta Neurol Scand 1970;46:493-512
12. Dixon WJ, Kuzma JW. Data reduction in large clinical trials. Community Stat 1974;3:301-324
13. Syndulko K, Tourtellotte WW, Baumhefner RW, et al. Neuroperformance evaluation of multiple sclerosis disease progression in a clinical trial: implications for neurological outcomes. J Neural Rehabil 1993;7:153-176
14. Rao SM, Leo GJ, Haughton VM, et al. Correlation of magnetic resonance imaging with neuropsychological testing in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1989;39:161-166
15. Fischer JS. Use of neuropsychological outcome measures in multiple sclerosis clinical trials: current status and strategies for improving MS trial design. In: Goodkin DE, Rudick RA, eds. Treatment of multiple sclerosis: advances in trial design, results, and future perspectives. London: Springer, 1996 (in press)
16. Thompson A. Evaluating neurological outcome measures: the bare essentials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996 (in press)
17. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967
18. Tourtellotte WW, Haerer AF, Simpson JF, et al. Quantitative clinical neurological testing. I. A study of a battery of tests designed to evaluate in part the neurologic function of patients with multiple sclerosis and its use in a therapeutic trial. Ann NY Acad Sci 1965;122:480-505
19. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. Methods of validating MOS health measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr, eds. Measuring functioning and well-being. The medical outcomes study approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993: 309-325
20. Hays RD, Steward AL. Construct validity of MOS health measures. In: Stewart AL, Ware JE Jr, eds. Measuring functioning and well-being. The medical outcomes study approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993:325-345
21. Albert MS. Criteria for the choice of neuropsychological tests in clinical trials. In: Mohr E, Brouwers P, eds. Handbook of clinical trials. The neurobehavioral approach. Berwyn, PA: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1991:131-139
22. World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980
23. Noseworthy JH, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, et al. Interrater variability with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and functional systems (FS) in a multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology 1990;40:971-975
24. Belendiuk G, Klatzman D, Mietlowski W, the Multiple Sclerosis Study group. Rating scales in assessment of multiple sclerosis. In: Davis R, Kondraski GV, Toutellotte WW, Syndulko K, eds. Quantifying neurologic performance. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus, 1989:177-184
25. Anderson JJ, Chernoff MC. Sensitivity to change of rheumatoid arthritis clinical trial outcome measures. J Rheumatol 1993;20:535-537
26. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:897-906
27. Farrell AD. Structural equation modeling with longitudinal data: strategies for examining group differences and reciprocal relationships. J Consult Clin Psychol 1994;62:477-487
28. Hageman WJ. A further refinement of the Reliable Change (RC) Index by improving the pre-post difference score: introducing RC-sub(ID). Behav Res Ther 1993;31:693-700
29. Gottman JM, Rushe RH. The analysis of change: issues, fallacies, and new ideas. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993;61:907-910
30. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27(suppl):S178-S189
31. Meenan RF, Anderson JJ, Kazis LE, et al. Outcome assessment in clinical trials. Evidence for the sensitivity of a health status measure. Arthritis Rheum 1984;27:1344-1352
32. Susskind EC, Howland EW. Measuring effect magnitude in repeated measures ANOVA designs: implications for gerontological research. J Gerontol 1980;35:867-876
33. Syndulko K, Ke D, Ellison GW, et al. Comparative evaluation of neuroperformance and clinical outcome assessments in multiple sclerosis. III. Effect size for disease progression and treatment efficacy and its relationship to clinical trial duration and inter-examination intervals. Multiple Sclerosis 1996 (submitted)
34. Ottenbacher KJ, Barrett KA. Measures of effect size in the reporting of rehabilitation research. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1991;70(suppl):131-137
35. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988
36. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33:1444-1452
37. Coste J, Fermanian J, Venot A. Methodological and statistical problems in the construction of composite measurement scales: a survey of six medical and epidemiological journals. Stat Med 1995;14:331-345
38. Roberts RS. Pooled outcome measures in arthritis: the pros and cons. J Rheumatol 1993;20:566-567
39. Petkau AJ. Statistical and design considerations for multiple sclerosis clinical trials. In: Goodkin DE, Rudick RA, eds. Multiple sclerosis: advances in clinical trial design, treatment, and future perspectives. London: Springer, 1996 (in press)
40. O'Brien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics 1984;40:1079-1087
41. Goldsmith CH, Smythe HA, Helewa A. Interpretation and power of a pooled index. J Rheumatol 1993;20:575-578
42. Ellison GW, Myers LW, Leake BD, et al. Design strategies in multiple sclerosis clinical trials. Ann Neurol 1994;36:S108-S112
43. Goodkin DE, Hertsgaard D, Rudick RA. Exacerbation rates and adherence to disease type in a prospectively followed-up population with multiple sclerosis. Implications for clinical trials. Arch Neurol 1989;46:1107-1112
44. Thompson AJ, Kermode AG, Wicks D, et al. Major differences in the dynamics of primary and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 1991;29:53-62
45. Rudick RA, Sibley W, Durelli L. Treatment of multiple sclerosis with type I interferons. In: Goodkin DE, Rudick RA, eds. Multiple sclerosis: advances in clinical trial design, treatment, and future perspectives. London: Springer, 1996 (in press)
46. Noseworthy JH, Rodrigues M, An K-N, et al. IVIg treatment in multiple sclerosis: pilot study results and design of a placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Ann Neurol 1994;36: 325 (Abstract)
47. Sipe JC, Knobler RL, Braheny SL, et al. A neurologic rating scale (NRS) for use in multiple sclerosis. Neurology 1984;34: 1368-1372