Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundThe Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) is the reference clinical scale to assess the severity of cerebellar ataxia. In the context of upcoming therapeutic trials, a reliable clinical outcome is needed to assess the efficiency of treatments.ObjectiveThe aim is to precisely assess and compare temporal dynamics of SARA and a new f-SARA.MethodsWe analyzed data from four cohorts (EUROSCA, RISCA, CRC-SCA, and SPATAX) comprising 1210 participants and 4092 visits. The linearity of the progression and the variability were assessed using an ordinal Bayesian mixed-effect model (Leaspy). We performed sample size calculations for therapeutic trials with different scenarios to improve the responsiveness of the scale.ResultsSeven of the eight different items had a nonlinear progression. The speed of progression was different between most of the items, with an average time for a one-point increase from 3.5 years [3.4; 3.6] (median, 95% credible interval) for the fastest item to 11.4 [10.9; 12.0] years. The total SARA score had a linear progression with an average time for a one-point increase of 0.95 [0.92; 0.98] years. After removing the four last items and rescaling all items from 0 to 4, variability increased and progression was slower and thus would require a larger sample size in a future therapeutic trial.ConclusionDespite a heterogeneous temporal dynamics at the item level, the global progression of SARA was linear. Changing the initial scale deteriorates the responsiveness. This new information about the temporal dynamics of the scale should help design the outcome of future clinical trials. © 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.