Geneieve Tai1, Louise A Corben1,2,3, Ian R Woodcock2,4,5, Eppie M Yiu1,2,4,5, Martin B Delatycki1,2,3,6. 1. Bruce Lefroy Centre for Genetic Health Research Murdoch Children's Research Institute Parkville Victoria Australia. 2. Department of Paediatrics University of Melbourne Parkville Victoria Australia. 3. School of Psychological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia. 4. Department of Neurology Royal Children's Hospital Parkville Victoria Australia. 5. Division of Neuroscience Murdoch Children's Research Institute Parkville Victoria Australia. 6. Victorian Clinical Genetics Service Parkville Victoria Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) are commonly used neurological rating scales in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA). The modified Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) has been accepted as an appropriate outcome measure for clinical trials in FRDA. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in limited face-to-face interactions with individuals involved in natural history studies and clinical trials. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of conducting the mFARS and SARA through video. METHODS: Individuals who had the mFARS administered face-to-face in the previous 6 months were invited to participate. Participants were sent instructions and asked to have a carer present to assist. The mFARS and SARA were then administered by video. Differences between face-to-face and video scores and the reliability between scores obtained face-to-face and by video were examined. RESULTS: The mFARS and SARA were conducted by video with 19 individuals. Excellent test-retest reliability was seen in the mFARS lower limb coordination (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.98) and upright stability sections (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), total mFARS (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and SARA scores (ICC = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent test-retest reliability was demonstrated in the majority of the mFARS sections, and in the total mFARS and SARA scores, suggesting that video is a valid method of conducting these scales. This method enables inclusion of participants who are unable to travel to study sites. A larger cohort will be required to further validate the use of video mFARS and SARA for future studies.
BACKGROUND: The Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) are commonly used neurological rating scales in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA). The modified Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) has been accepted as an appropriate outcome measure for clinical trials in FRDA. OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in limited face-to-face interactions with individuals involved in natural history studies and clinical trials. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of conducting the mFARS and SARA through video. METHODS: Individuals who had the mFARS administered face-to-face in the previous 6 months were invited to participate. Participants were sent instructions and asked to have a carer present to assist. The mFARS and SARA were then administered by video. Differences between face-to-face and video scores and the reliability between scores obtained face-to-face and by video were examined. RESULTS: The mFARS and SARA were conducted by video with 19 individuals. Excellent test-retest reliability was seen in the mFARS lower limb coordination (ICC = 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.98) and upright stability sections (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-0.99), total mFARS (ICC = 0.97, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and SARA scores (ICC = 0.98, 95% CI 0.95-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent test-retest reliability was demonstrated in the majority of the mFARS sections, and in the total mFARS and SARA scores, suggesting that video is a valid method of conducting these scales. This method enables inclusion of participants who are unable to travel to study sites. A larger cohort will be required to further validate the use of video mFARS and SARA for future studies.
Authors: T Klockgether; R Lüdtke; B Kramer; M Abele; K Bürk; L Schöls; O Riess; F Laccone; S Boesch; I Lopes-Cendes; A Brice; R Inzelberg; N Zilber; J Dichgans Journal: Brain Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Marcus Grobe-Einsler; Arian Taheri Amin; Jennifer Faber; Tamara Schaprian; Heike Jacobi; Tanja Schmitz-Hübsch; Alhassane Diallo; Sophie Tezenas du Montcel; Thomas Klockgether Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: T Schmitz-Hübsch; S Tezenas du Montcel; L Baliko; J Berciano; S Boesch; C Depondt; P Giunti; C Globas; J Infante; J-S Kang; B Kremer; C Mariotti; B Melegh; M Pandolfo; M Rakowicz; P Ribai; R Rola; L Schöls; S Szymanski; B P van de Warrenburg; A Dürr; T Klockgether; Roberto Fancellu Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-06-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Christian Rummey; Theresa A Zesiewicz; Santiago Perez-Lloret; Jennifer M Farmer; Massimo Pandolfo; David R Lynch Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: V Campuzano; L Montermini; M D Moltò; L Pianese; M Cossée; F Cavalcanti; E Monros; F Rodius; F Duclos; A Monticelli; F Zara; J Cañizares; H Koutnikova; S I Bidichandani; C Gellera; A Brice; P Trouillas; G De Michele; A Filla; R De Frutos; F Palau; P I Patel; S Di Donato; J L Mandel; S Cocozza; M Koenig; M Pandolfo Journal: Science Date: 1996-03-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Arne Mueller; Elaine Paterson; Avery McIntosh; Jens Praestgaard; Mary Bylo; Holger Hoefling; McKenzie Wells; David R Lynch; Christian Rummey; Michelle L Krishnan; Meredith Schultz; C J Malanga Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 4.511