Evaluation of the scales assessing the severity of myasthenia gravis

Q4 Medicine
Xiang Gao, Xu Zhang, Huan Yang, Hongyu Zhou, Yan‐chen Xie, Wei Qiu, Li Xiao, Renhua Wang, Meng Xia, Lin Wang
{"title":"Evaluation of the scales assessing the severity of myasthenia gravis","authors":"Xiang Gao, Xu Zhang, Huan Yang, Hongyu Zhou, Yan‐chen Xie, Wei Qiu, Li Xiao, Renhua Wang, Meng Xia, Lin Wang","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1006-7876.2016.05.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo evaluate the reliability and validity of the 4 myasthenia gravis (MG) scales widely used for assessing the grades of disease severity in Chinese MG patients. \n \n \nMethods \nSixty MG patients were examined by a neurologist with the following four MG scales: Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score (QMGS), Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC), Myasthenic Muscle Scale (MMS), Absolute and Relative Score of MG (ARS-MG). The whole assessment process was videotaped. MG Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score was acquired after the examination. The patients were examined by the same neurologist with the same MG scales within 24 hours after the first examination. The original videotapes of each patient were assessed by five other neurologists independently. Interobserver reliability of each item of the four MG scales was assessed with weighted Kappa test. Internal consistency of the scales was assessed with Cronbach ɑ. Test-retest reliability and interobserver reliability among the five neurologists were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficience (ICC). The construct validity was assessed with factor analysis. Criterion validity was assessed by Spearman correlation analysis. \n \n \nResults \nInterobserver reliability of items of the 4 MG scales was moderate (k 0.310-0.891, P<0.01). All 4 MG scales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach ɑ 0.701-0.734) with high test-retest reliability (ICC 0.887-0.948, P<0.01) and interobserver reliability (ICC 0.853-0.917, P<0.01). Factor analysis showed good construct validity (accumulative dedication rate 66.49%-72.64%). There was moderate to strong correlation between QMGS (as criterion) and the other three scales (r 0.792-0.840, P<0.01), and moderate correlation between MG-ADL (as criterion) and the four scales (r 0.693-0.766, P<0.01). \n \n \nConclusion \nThe 4 widely used MG severity scales can effectively assess the grades of disease severity of MG with good reliability and validity. \n \n \nKey words: \nMyasthenia gravis; Evaluation studies; Reproducibity of results; Validation studies","PeriodicalId":10143,"journal":{"name":"中华神经科杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华神经科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1006-7876.2016.05.007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the reliability and validity of the 4 myasthenia gravis (MG) scales widely used for assessing the grades of disease severity in Chinese MG patients. Methods Sixty MG patients were examined by a neurologist with the following four MG scales: Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score (QMGS), Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC), Myasthenic Muscle Scale (MMS), Absolute and Relative Score of MG (ARS-MG). The whole assessment process was videotaped. MG Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score was acquired after the examination. The patients were examined by the same neurologist with the same MG scales within 24 hours after the first examination. The original videotapes of each patient were assessed by five other neurologists independently. Interobserver reliability of each item of the four MG scales was assessed with weighted Kappa test. Internal consistency of the scales was assessed with Cronbach ɑ. Test-retest reliability and interobserver reliability among the five neurologists were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficience (ICC). The construct validity was assessed with factor analysis. Criterion validity was assessed by Spearman correlation analysis. Results Interobserver reliability of items of the 4 MG scales was moderate (k 0.310-0.891, P<0.01). All 4 MG scales showed good internal consistency (Cronbach ɑ 0.701-0.734) with high test-retest reliability (ICC 0.887-0.948, P<0.01) and interobserver reliability (ICC 0.853-0.917, P<0.01). Factor analysis showed good construct validity (accumulative dedication rate 66.49%-72.64%). There was moderate to strong correlation between QMGS (as criterion) and the other three scales (r 0.792-0.840, P<0.01), and moderate correlation between MG-ADL (as criterion) and the four scales (r 0.693-0.766, P<0.01). Conclusion The 4 widely used MG severity scales can effectively assess the grades of disease severity of MG with good reliability and validity. Key words: Myasthenia gravis; Evaluation studies; Reproducibity of results; Validation studies
重症肌无力严重程度评定量表的评定
目的评价我国重症肌无力(MG)患者疾病严重程度分级常用的4种量表的信度和效度。方法采用重症肌无力定量评分(QMGS)、重症肌无力复合评分(MGC)、重症肌无力肌肉评分(MMS)、重症肌无力绝对评分和相对评分(ARS-MG)对60例重症肌无力患者进行检查。整个评估过程都被录了下来。检查后获得MG日常生活活动(MG- adl)评分。患者在第一次检查后24小时内由同一神经科医生用相同的MG量表进行检查。每位患者的原始录像带由另外五位神经科医生独立评估。采用加权Kappa检验评估四个MG量表各条目的观察者间信度。采用Cronbach评价量表的内部一致性。采用类内相关系数(ICC)评估5名神经科医师的重测信度和观察者间信度。采用因子分析评估构念效度。采用Spearman相关分析评价标准效度。结果4份MG量表各条目的观察者间信度为中等(k = 0.310 ~ 0.891, P<0.01)。4种MG量表均具有良好的内部一致性(Cronbach系数0.701 ~ 0.734)、较高的重测信度(ICC系数0.887 ~ 0.948,P<0.01)和观察者间信度(ICC系数0.853 ~ 0.917,P<0.01)。因子分析表明,构念效度较好(累计奉献率66.49% ~ 72.64%)。QMGS与其他3个量表的相关性均为中至强(r = 0.792 ~ 0.840, P<0.01), MG-ADL与4个量表的相关性均为中至强(r = 0.693 ~ 0.766, P<0.01)。结论应用广泛的4种MG严重程度量表能有效评价MG的疾病严重程度等级,具有良好的信度和效度。关键词:重症肌无力;评价研究;结果的重现性;验证研究
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华神经科杂志
中华神经科杂志 Medicine-Neurology (clinical)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6868
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信