Search

INTRODUCTION: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system. Estimates of MS natural history (NH) disability progression speed from clinical observations vary worldwide. This may reflect, in part, variance in censoring-bias) (missing observations) and assumptions about when irreversible disability progression events occurred. We test whether estimates of progression speed which assume midpoint survival time at irreversible disability endpoints are significantly faster than estimates which assume maximum survival time, and are more stable across study groups and time periods. METHODS: Our Nova Scotia NH study population includes 2,240 definite relapsing-onset multiple sclerosis (R-MS) natural history patients with 18,078 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) clinical observations in study period 1979-2010. Progression speed is measured by rate-of-change in range EDSS 0-6 and by survival time at irreversible endpoints EDSS 1-9. Midpoint censoring-bias-reduction methods are applied to clinical observations. FINDINGS: Typical EDSS increase per year in range EDSS 0-6, assuming midpoint survival time, is estimated to be 0.168 for all R-MS, 0.204 for eventually-DMD-treated patients and 0.155 for never-DMD-treated patients. Estimates assuming midpoint rather than maximum survival time are significantly faster: 16% faster for all R-MS natural history patients, 6% faster for eventually-DMD-treated patients, and 21% faster for never-DMD-treated patients. The variability of estimates across study groups and time periods decreased when midpoint survival time was assumed. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of typical disease progression speed from 1979-2010 Nova Scotia clinical observations are sensitive to censoring-bias and to analysts' survival time assumptions. Censoring-bias-adjusted estimates of typical natural history disability progression speed in relapsing-onset multiple sclerosis patients are significantly faster, and less variable within and across study groups and time periods, than unadjusted estimates, and are, arguably, more relevant for various stakeholders. The application of censoring-bias-reduction methods to other multiple sclerosis clinical databases may reduce variability in estimates of disability progression speed worldwide.

The social skills rating system (SSRS) is used to assess social skills and competence in children and adolescents. While its characteristics based on United States samples (US) are published, corresponding Australian figures are unavailable. Using a 4-week retest design, we examined the internal consistency, retest reliability and measurement error (ME) of the SSRS secondary student form (SSF) in a sample of Year 7 students (N = 187), from five randomly selected public schools in Perth, western Australia. Internal consistency (IC) of the total scale and most subscale scores (except empathy) on the frequency rating scale was adequate to permit independent use. On the importance rating scale, most IC estimates for girls fell below the benchmark. Test-retest estimates of the total scale and subscales were insufficient to permit reliable use. ME of the total scale score (frequency rating) for boys was equivalent to the US estimate, while that for girls was lower than the US error. ME of the total scale score (importance rating) was larger than the error using the frequency rating scale. The study finding supports the idea of using multiple informants (e.g. teacher and parent reports), not just student as recommended in the manual. Future research needs to substantiate the clinical meaningfulness of the MEs calculated in this study by corroborating them against the respective Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID).

The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson's (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test-retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test-retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool.