Sharshar T, Chevret S, Mazighi M, Chillet P, Huberfeld G, Berreotta C, Houfani M, Gajdos P
Service de Réanimation Médicale, Hôpital Raymond Poincaré, Garches, France.
J Neurol. 2000 Apr;247(4):286-90. doi: 10.1007/s004150050585.
Valid and reliable measurements of muscle impairment are needed to assess therapeutic efficacy in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (MG). In 22 patients we compared the validity and interobserver reliability of two scoring methods commonly used as main endpoints in clinical trials, i.e., the Myasthenic Muscle Score (MMS) ranging from 0 to 100 (normal) and the Quantified Myasthenia Gravis Strength Score (QMGSS) ranging from 0 (normal) to 39. Each score is correlated more with functional scale and less with the patient's self-evaluation. Using intraclass correlation we found strong agreement between observers for both the MMS (r = 0.906) and the QMGSS (r = 0.905). The correlation between MMS and QGMSS was high (r = 0.87). The reliability of neither score depended on any specific item, since the removal of individual items did not significantly alter the intraclass correlation coefficient (ranging from 0.86 to 0.93).
需要对肌肉损伤进行有效且可靠的测量，以评估全身型重症肌无力（MG）患者的治疗效果。我们对22例患者比较了两种在临床试验中常用作主要终点的评分方法的有效性和观察者间可靠性，即范围从0至100（正常）的重症肌无力肌肉评分（MMS）和范围从0（正常）至39的重症肌无力量化肌力评分（QMGSS）。每个评分与功能量表的相关性更高，与患者自我评估的相关性更低。使用组内相关性，我们发现观察者之间对于MMS（r = 0.906）和QMGSS（r = 0.905）均有高度一致性。MMS与QGMSS之间的相关性很高（r = 0.87）。两种评分的可靠性均不依赖于任何特定项目，因为去除单个项目并不会显著改变组内相关系数（范围从0.86至0.93）。
