Yeliz Salcı1, Ayla Fil2, Hilal Keklicek2, Barış Çetin2, Kadriye Armutlu2, Anıl Dolgun3, Aslı Tuncer4, Rana Karabudak4. 1. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: fztyeliz@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. 3. Mathematical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ataxia is an extremely common problem in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Thus, appropriate scales are required for detailed assessment of this issue. The aim of our study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), which are widely used in ataxia evaluation in the context of other cerebellar diseases. METHOD: This cross-sectional study included 80 MS patients with Kurtzke cerebellar functional system score (C-FSS) greater than zero and slight pyramidal involvement. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), C-FSS, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were administered. SARA and ICARS were assessed on first admission by two physical therapists. Seven days later, second assessments were repeated in same way for reliability. RESULTS: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were found to be high for both ICARS and SARA (p< 0.001) The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.922 and 0.921 for SARA (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 respectively) and 0.952 and 0.952 for ICARS (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively). There were no floor or ceiling effects determined for either scale except for item 17 of ICARS (p= 0.055). The EDSS total score had significant correlations with both SARA and ICARS (rho: 0.557 and 0.707, respectively). C-FSS had moderate correlation with SARA and high correlation with ICARS (rho: 0.469 and 0.653, respectively). BBS had no significant correlation with SARA and ICARS. (rho: -0.048 and -0.008 respectively). According to the area under the curve (AUC) value, ICARS is the best scale to discriminate mild and moderate ataxia. (AUC: 0.875). Factor analyses of ICARS showed that the rating results were determined by five different factors that did not coincide with the ICARS sub-scales. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that ICARS and SARA are both reliable in MS patients with ataxia. Although ICARS has some structural problems, it seems to be more valid given its high correlations with EDSS and C-FSS. SARA also can be preferred as a brief assessment.
BACKGROUND:Ataxia is an extremely common problem in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Thus, appropriate scales are required for detailed assessment of this issue. The aim of our study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), which are widely used in ataxia evaluation in the context of other cerebellar diseases. METHOD: This cross-sectional study included 80 MSpatients with Kurtzke cerebellar functional system score (C-FSS) greater than zero and slight pyramidal involvement. The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), C-FSS, and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were administered. SARA and ICARS were assessed on first admission by two physical therapists. Seven days later, second assessments were repeated in same way for reliability. RESULTS: Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were found to be high for both ICARS and SARA (p< 0.001) The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.922 and 0.921 for SARA (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2 respectively) and 0.952 and 0.952 for ICARS (reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively). There were no floor or ceiling effects determined for either scale except for item 17 of ICARS (p= 0.055). The EDSS total score had significant correlations with both SARA and ICARS (rho: 0.557 and 0.707, respectively). C-FSS had moderate correlation with SARA and high correlation with ICARS (rho: 0.469 and 0.653, respectively). BBS had no significant correlation with SARA and ICARS. (rho: -0.048 and -0.008 respectively). According to the area under the curve (AUC) value, ICARS is the best scale to discriminate mild and moderate ataxia. (AUC: 0.875). Factor analyses of ICARS showed that the rating results were determined by five different factors that did not coincide with the ICARS sub-scales. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that ICARS and SARA are both reliable in MSpatients with ataxia. Although ICARS has some structural problems, it seems to be more valid given its high correlations with EDSS and C-FSS. SARA also can be preferred as a brief assessment.
Authors: Rachel Brandstadter; Oluwasheyi Ayeni; Stephen C Krieger; Noam Y Harel; Miguel X Escalon; Ilana Katz Sand; Victoria M Leavitt; Michelle T Fabian; Korhan Buyukturkoglu; Sylvia Klineova; Claire S Riley; Fred D Lublin; Aaron E Miller; James F Sumowski Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Pierre Cabaraux; Sunil K Agrawal; Huaying Cai; Rocco Salvatore Calabro; Carlo Casali; Loic Damm; Sarah Doss; Christophe Habas; Anja K E Horn; Winfried Ilg; Elan D Louis; Hiroshi Mitoma; Vito Monaco; Maria Petracca; Alberto Ranavolo; Ashwini K Rao; Serena Ruggieri; Tommaso Schirinzi; Mariano Serrao; Susanna Summa; Michael Strupp; Olivia Surgent; Matthis Synofzik; Shuai Tao; Hiroo Terasi; Diego Torres-Russotto; Brittany Travers; Jaimie A Roper; Mario Manto Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Katherine Hope Kenyon; Frederique Boonstra; Gustavo Noffs; Helmut Butzkueven; Adam P Vogel; Scott Kolbe; Anneke van der Walt Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2022-06-27 Impact factor: 3.648
Authors: M J Boyce; A B McCambridge; L V Bradnam; C G Canning; N Mahant; F C F Chang; V S C Fung; A P Verhagen Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Andrew M Scheidler; Dominique Kinnett-Hopkins; Yvonne C Learmonth; Robert Motl; Citlali López-Ortiz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.240