Amr M Fouad, Maged Abdel Naseer, Marwa Farghaly, Mohamed I Hegazy
{"title":"新的算法方法,更容易和更快的扩展残疾状态量表计算。","authors":"Amr M Fouad, Maged Abdel Naseer, Marwa Farghaly, Mohamed I Hegazy","doi":"10.1177/20552173231155055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The traditional paper and pencil method for EDSS calculation (pEDSS) is the cornerstone of multiple sclerosis practice; however, it requires an expert for an accurate calculation, and it takes a lot of time to perform the function scores. A new algorithmic approach (aEDSS) has been developed for easier and faster assessment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if using aEDSS can achieve good inter-rater agreement and save time compared to pEDSS.</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>This study was conducted on 200 MS patients; EDSS was performed twice for each patient by two neurologists on the same day; one used the pEDSS, and the other used the aEDSS in a random order to test the inter-rater agreement regarding functional system scores and the final EDSS score and to detect the difference in the time needed for calculation between both methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The new algorithmic approach achieved excellent agreement with the traditional method (Kappa > 0.81) with a shorter calculation time (16 ± 2.67 min for aEDSS vs 31 ± 4.3 min for pEDSS, <i>P</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The new algorithmic approach could represent a suitable alternative to the traditional method, making EDSS calculation easier and faster.</p>","PeriodicalId":18961,"journal":{"name":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","volume":"9 1","pages":"20552173231155055"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/69/10.1177_20552173231155055.PMC9936401.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New algorithmic approach for easier and faster extended disability status scale calculation.\",\"authors\":\"Amr M Fouad, Maged Abdel Naseer, Marwa Farghaly, Mohamed I Hegazy\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20552173231155055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The traditional paper and pencil method for EDSS calculation (pEDSS) is the cornerstone of multiple sclerosis practice; however, it requires an expert for an accurate calculation, and it takes a lot of time to perform the function scores. A new algorithmic approach (aEDSS) has been developed for easier and faster assessment.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine if using aEDSS can achieve good inter-rater agreement and save time compared to pEDSS.</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>This study was conducted on 200 MS patients; EDSS was performed twice for each patient by two neurologists on the same day; one used the pEDSS, and the other used the aEDSS in a random order to test the inter-rater agreement regarding functional system scores and the final EDSS score and to detect the difference in the time needed for calculation between both methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The new algorithmic approach achieved excellent agreement with the traditional method (Kappa > 0.81) with a shorter calculation time (16 ± 2.67 min for aEDSS vs 31 ± 4.3 min for pEDSS, <i>P</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The new algorithmic approach could represent a suitable alternative to the traditional method, making EDSS calculation easier and faster.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18961,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"20552173231155055\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/69/10.1177_20552173231155055.PMC9936401.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173231155055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Multiple Sclerosis Journal - Experimental, Translational and Clinical","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552173231155055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
背景:传统的纸笔法计算EDSS (pEDSS)是多发性硬化症实践的基石;但是,它需要专家进行准确的计算,并且需要花费大量时间来执行函数得分。一种新的算法方法(aEDSS)已经发展为更容易和更快的评估。目的:确定与pEDSS相比,使用aEDSS是否能达到良好的评分一致性并节省时间。对象和方法:本研究纳入200例MS患者;EDSS由两名神经科医生在同一天为每位患者进行两次;一组使用pEDSS,另一组以随机顺序使用aEDSS来测试评分者对功能系统评分和最终EDSS评分的一致性,并检测两种方法计算所需时间的差异。结果:新算法与传统方法吻合良好(Kappa > 0.81),计算时间更短(aEDSS为16±2.67 min, pEDSS为31±4.3 min, P < 0.0001)。结论:新算法可替代传统方法,使EDSS计算更简单、更快。
New algorithmic approach for easier and faster extended disability status scale calculation.
Background: The traditional paper and pencil method for EDSS calculation (pEDSS) is the cornerstone of multiple sclerosis practice; however, it requires an expert for an accurate calculation, and it takes a lot of time to perform the function scores. A new algorithmic approach (aEDSS) has been developed for easier and faster assessment.
Objective: To determine if using aEDSS can achieve good inter-rater agreement and save time compared to pEDSS.
Subjects and methods: This study was conducted on 200 MS patients; EDSS was performed twice for each patient by two neurologists on the same day; one used the pEDSS, and the other used the aEDSS in a random order to test the inter-rater agreement regarding functional system scores and the final EDSS score and to detect the difference in the time needed for calculation between both methods.
Results: The new algorithmic approach achieved excellent agreement with the traditional method (Kappa > 0.81) with a shorter calculation time (16 ± 2.67 min for aEDSS vs 31 ± 4.3 min for pEDSS, P < 0.0001).
Conclusion: The new algorithmic approach could represent a suitable alternative to the traditional method, making EDSS calculation easier and faster.