NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale (UMSARS) is a commonly used semiquantitative rating scale to assess symptoms and measure disease progression in multiple system atrophy (MSA). However, it is currently incompletely understood which UMSARS items are the most sensitive to change and most relevant to the patient.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess sensitivity to change and patient-centricity of single UMSARS items.MethodsData were taken from the European Multiple System Atrophy Study Group Natural History Study and the Rasagiline for Multiple System Atrophy trial. Sensitivity of change of an item of the UMSARS was assessed by calculation of a sensitivity-to-change ratio using its mean slope of progression divided by the standard deviation of the slope when modeling its progression over time. Patient-centricity was assessed through correlation of UMSARS items with quality-of-life measures.ResultsProgression rates above the mean in at least one of the two studies examined here were seen for seven items of UMSARS I and 11 items of UMSARS II. These items related to key motor functions such as swallowing, speech, handwriting, cutting food, hygiene, and dressing or walking, whereas items related to autonomic dysfunction were generally less sensitive to change in either data set. More UMSARS I items were identified as patient-centric compared with UMSARS II items, and items most strongly impacting patients' quality of life were those affecting verbal communication skills, personal hygiene, and walking.ConclusionThe present results illustrate the potential to optimize the UMSARS to enhance sensitivity to change and patient centricity. © 2022 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.