Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2014
English cross-cultural translation and validation of the neuromuscular score: a system for motor function classification in patients with neuromuscular diseases.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vuillerot Carole, Meilleur Katherine G, Jain Minal, Waite Melissa, Wu Tianxia, Linton Melody, Datsgir Jahannaz, Donkervoort Sandra, Leach Meganne E, Rutkowski Anne, Rippert Pascal, Payan Christine, Iwaz Jean, Hamroun Dalil, Bérard Carole, Poirot Isabelle, Bönnemann Carsten G
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an English version of the Neuromuscular (NM)-Score, a classification for patients with NM diseases in each of the 3 motor function domains: D1, standing and transfers; D2, axial and proximal motor function; and D3, distal motor function.
DESIGN: Validation survey.
SETTING: Patients seen at a medical research center between June and September 2013.
PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients (N=42) aged 5 to 19 years with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of congenital muscular dystrophy.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: An English version of the NM-Score was developed by a 9-person expert panel that assessed its content validity and semantic equivalence. Its concurrent validity was tested against criterion standards (Brooke Scale, Motor Function Measure [MFM], activity limitations for patients with upper and/or lower limb impairments [ACTIVLIM], Jebsen Test, and myometry measurements). Informant agreement between patient/caregiver (P/C)-reported and medical doctor (MD)-reported NM scores was measured by weighted kappa.
RESULTS: Significant correlation coefficients were found between NM scores and criterion standards. The highest correlations were found between NM-score D1 and MFM score D1 (ρ=-.944, P<.0001), ACTIVLIM (ρ=-.895, P<.0001), and hip abduction strength by myometry (ρ=-.811, P<.0001). Informant agreement between P/C-reported and MD-reported NM scores was high for D1 (κ=.801; 95% confidence interval [CI], .701-.914) but moderate for D2 (κ=.592; 95% CI, .412-.773) and D3 (κ=.485; 95% CI, .290-.680). Correlation coefficients between the NM scores and the criterion standards did not significantly differ between P/C-reported and MD-reported NM scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians completed the English NM-Score easily and accurately. The English version is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in clinical practice and research to describe the functional abilities of patients with NM diseases.
DESIGN: Validation survey.
SETTING: Patients seen at a medical research center between June and September 2013.
PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients (N=42) aged 5 to 19 years with a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of congenital muscular dystrophy.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: An English version of the NM-Score was developed by a 9-person expert panel that assessed its content validity and semantic equivalence. Its concurrent validity was tested against criterion standards (Brooke Scale, Motor Function Measure [MFM], activity limitations for patients with upper and/or lower limb impairments [ACTIVLIM], Jebsen Test, and myometry measurements). Informant agreement between patient/caregiver (P/C)-reported and medical doctor (MD)-reported NM scores was measured by weighted kappa.
RESULTS: Significant correlation coefficients were found between NM scores and criterion standards. The highest correlations were found between NM-score D1 and MFM score D1 (ρ=-.944, P<.0001), ACTIVLIM (ρ=-.895, P<.0001), and hip abduction strength by myometry (ρ=-.811, P<.0001). Informant agreement between P/C-reported and MD-reported NM scores was high for D1 (κ=.801; 95% confidence interval [CI], .701-.914) but moderate for D2 (κ=.592; 95% CI, .412-.773) and D3 (κ=.485; 95% CI, .290-.680). Correlation coefficients between the NM scores and the criterion standards did not significantly differ between P/C-reported and MD-reported NM scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients and physicians completed the English NM-Score easily and accurately. The English version is a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in clinical practice and research to describe the functional abilities of patients with NM diseases.