University of Virginia, Department of Neurology, PO Box 800394, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA.
Neurology. 2010 May 4;74(18):1434-40. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181dc1b1e.
To study the concurrent and construct validity and test-retest reliability in the practice setting of an outcome measure for myasthenia gravis (MG).
Eleven centers participated in the validation study of the Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC) scale. Patients with MG were evaluated at 2 consecutive visits. Concurrent and construct validities of the MGC were assessed by evaluating MGC scores in the context of other MG-specific outcome measures. We used numerous potential indicators of clinical improvement to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the MGC for detecting clinical improvement. Test-retest reliability was performed on patients at the University of Virginia.
A total of 175 patients with MG were enrolled at 11 sites from July 1, 2008, to January 31, 2009. A total of 151 patients were seen in follow-up. Total MGC scores showed excellent concurrent validity with other MG-specific scales. Analyses of sensitivities and specificities of the MGC revealed that a 3-point improvement in total MGC score was optimal for signifying clinical improvement. A 3-point improvement in the MGC also appears to represent a meaningful improvement to most patients, as indicated by improved 15-item myasthenia gravis quality of life scale (MG-QOL15) scores. The psychometric properties were no better for an individualized subscore made up of the 2 functional domains that the patient identified as most important to treat. The test-retest reliability coefficient of the MGC was 98%, with a lower 95% confidence interval of 97%, indicating excellent test-retest reliability.
The Myasthenia Gravis Composite is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring clinical status of patients with myasthenia gravis in the practice setting and in clinical trials.
研究在重症肌无力(MG)治疗实践环境下,一种肌无力综合评分(MGC)的同时效性、结构效度和重测信度。
11 个中心参与了 MGC 量表的验证研究。MG 患者在 2 次连续就诊时进行评估。通过评估 MGC 评分与其他 MG 特定结局测量指标的关系,评估 MGC 的同时效性和结构效度。我们使用了许多潜在的临床改善指标来评估 MGC 检测临床改善的敏感性和特异性。在弗吉尼亚大学,对患者进行了重测信度评估。
2008 年 7 月 1 日至 2009 年 1 月 31 日,11 个地点共纳入了 175 例 MG 患者。共 151 例患者接受了随访。MGC 总分与其他特定 MG 的量表具有极好的同时效性。MGC 的敏感性和特异性分析表明,MGC 总分提高 3 分是临床改善的最佳标志。MGC 提高 3 分似乎也代表了大多数患者的有意义改善,正如 15 项肌无力生活质量量表(MG-QOL15)评分的改善所表明的那样。对于由患者认为对治疗最重要的 2 个功能领域组成的个性化子评分,其心理测量特性并没有更好。MGC 的重测信度系数为 98%,95%置信区间下限为 97%,表明重测信度极好。
在实践环境和临床试验中,重症肌无力综合评分是一种可靠且有效的工具,用于测量重症肌无力患者的临床状况。