Ted M Burns1, Mark Conaway, Donald B Sanders. 1. University of Virginia, Department of Neurology, PO Box 800394, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. tmb8r@virginia.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study the concurrent and construct validity and test-retest reliability in the practice setting of an outcome measure for myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: Eleven centers participated in the validation study of the Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) scale. Patients with MG were evaluated at 2 consecutive visits. Concurrent and construct validities of the MGC were assessed by evaluating MGC scores in the context of other MG-specific outcome measures. We used numerous potential indicators of clinical improvement to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the MGC for detecting clinical improvement. Test-retest reliability was performed on patients at the University of Virginia. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients with MG were enrolled at 11 sites from July 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009. A total of 151 patients were seen in follow-up. Total MGC scores showed excellent concurrent validity with other MG-specific scales. Analyses of sensitivities and specificities of the MGC revealed that a 3-point improvement in total MGC score was optimal for signifying clinical improvement. A 3-point improvement in the MGC also appears to represent a meaningful improvement to most patients, as indicated by improved 15-item myasthenia gravis quality of life scale (MG-QOL15) scores. The psychometric properties were no better for an individualized subscore made up of the 2 functional domains that the patient identified as most important to treat. The test-retest reliability coefficient of the MGC was 98%, with a lower 95% confidence interval of 97%, indicating excellent test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The Myasthenia Gravis Composite is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring clinical status of patients with myasthenia gravis in the practice setting and in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: To study the concurrent and construct validity and test-retest reliability in the practice setting of an outcome measure for myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: Eleven centers participated in the validation study of the Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) scale. Patients with MG were evaluated at 2 consecutive visits. Concurrent and construct validities of the MGC were assessed by evaluating MGC scores in the context of other MG-specific outcome measures. We used numerous potential indicators of clinical improvement to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the MGC for detecting clinical improvement. Test-retest reliability was performed on patients at the University of Virginia. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients with MG were enrolled at 11 sites from July 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009. A total of 151 patients were seen in follow-up. Total MGC scores showed excellent concurrent validity with other MG-specific scales. Analyses of sensitivities and specificities of the MGC revealed that a 3-point improvement in total MGC score was optimal for signifying clinical improvement. A 3-point improvement in the MGC also appears to represent a meaningful improvement to most patients, as indicated by improved 15-item myasthenia gravis quality of life scale (MG-QOL15) scores. The psychometric properties were no better for an individualized subscore made up of the 2 functional domains that the patient identified as most important to treat. The test-retest reliability coefficient of the MGC was 98%, with a lower 95% confidence interval of 97%, indicating excellent test-retest reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The Myasthenia Gravis Composite is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring clinical status of patients with myasthenia gravis in the practice setting and in clinical trials.
Authors: T Sharshar; S Chevret; M Mazighi; P Chillet; G Huberfeld; C Berreotta; M Houfani; P Gajdos Journal: J Neurol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: L Padua; A Evoli; I Aprile; P Caliandro; A P Batocchi; C Punzi; S Mazza; R Padua; P Tonali Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: D B Sanders; I K Hart; R Mantegazza; S S Shukla; Z A Siddiqi; M H V De Baets; A Melms; M W Nicolle; N Solomons; D P Richman Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-04-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Juan Carlos López-Hernández; Javier A Galnares-Olalde; Enrique Gómez-Figueroa; Adib Jorge de Sarachaga; Edwin Steven Vargas-Cañas Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-02-08
Authors: James F Howard; Vera Bril; Ted M Burns; Renato Mantegazza; Malgorzata Bilinska; Andrzej Szczudlik; Said Beydoun; Francisco Javier Rodriguez De Rivera Garrido; Fredrik Piehl; Mariarosa Rottoli; Philip Van Damme; Tuan Vu; Amelia Evoli; Miriam Freimer; Tahseen Mozaffar; E Sally Ward; Torsten Dreier; Peter Ulrichts; Katrien Verschueren; Antonio Guglietta; Hans de Haard; Nicolas Leupin; Jan J G M Verschuuren Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jeffrey T Guptill; Vern C Juel; Janice M Massey; Amanda C Anderson; Manisha Chopra; John S Yi; Ehsanollah Esfandiari; Tim Buchanan; Bryan Smith; Paul Atherfold; Emma Jones; James F Howard Journal: Autoimmunity Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 2.815