Search

Background and Purpose: The symptom of fatigue impairs function in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Choosing appropriate measures to assess fatigue is challenging. The purpose of this article is to report the findings of a systematic review of patient-reported fatigue measures for people with MS. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched through January 2020 using terms related to fatigue and MS. Studies were included if the sample size was 30 or more or smaller samples if adequately powered, and if information about measurement characteristics (ie, test-retest reliability, content validity, responsiveness, interpretability, or generalizability) of the measure(s) could be extracted. Study quality was appraised with the 2-point COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Data about measurement characteristics, psychometrics, and clinical utility were extracted and results were synthesized. Results: Twenty-four articles met inclusion criteria with information about 17 patient-reported fatigue measures. No studies had critical methodologic flaws. Measurement characteristic data were not available for all measures. Clinical utility varied in time to complete and fatigue domains assessed. Discussion and Conclusions: Five measures had data pertaining to all properties of interest. Of these, only the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) and Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) had excellent reliability, responsiveness data, no notable ceiling/floor effects, and high clinical utility. We recommend the MFIS for comprehensive measurement and the FSS for screening of subjective fatigue in people with MS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: This study's purpose was to investigate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) for measuring mobility-related goals in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: Data from 32 participants with MS who underwent 8 to 10 weeks of rehabilitation were analyzed (Expanded Disability Status Scale scores 1.0-7.0). For the PSFS, participants identified 3 mobility-related areas where they had difficulty and rated them at baseline, 10 to 14 days later (before starting intervention), and immediately after intervention. Test-retest reliability and response stability of the PSFS were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and minimal detectable change (MDC95), respectively. Concurrent validity of the PSFS was determined with the 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale (MSWS-12) and the Timed 25-Foot Walk Test (T25FW). PSFS responsiveness was determined using Cohen's d , and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated based on patient-reported improvements on a Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scale. Results: The PSFS total score demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.84) and the MDC was 2.1 points. At baseline, the PSFS was fairly and significantly correlated with the MSWS-12 (r = −0.46, P = 0.008) but not with the T25FW. Changes in the PSFS were moderately and significantly correlated with the GRoC scale (ρ = 0.63, P < 0.001), but not with MSWS-12 or T25FW changes. The PSFS was responsive (d = 1.7), and the MCID was 2.5 points or more to identify patient-perceived improvements based on the GRoC scale (sensitivity = 0.85, specificity = 0.76). Discussion and Conclusions: This study supports the use of the PSFS as an outcome measure in people with MS to assess mobility-related goals. Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A423). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]