Myasthenia Gravis Composite – Validation of the Czech Version

Česká verzia

Authors: M. Chmelíková; S. Voháňka; J. Bednařík
Authors place of work: Neurologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2016; 79/112(5): 585-590
Category: Short Communication

Summary

Objective:
In 2008, the new MG Composite score was constructed from selected items of existing scales of myasthenia (QMG, MMT-MG, MG-ADL). The aim of this study was to validate the Czech version of MGC and to check reliability of the new scale in a group of patients from the Neuromuscular Centre of the University Hospital in Brno.

Methods:
The Czech translation of MGC was validated by forward-backward translation. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with 40 patients (during a routine outpatient visit or hospitalization). Patients were assessed independently by two neurologists on the same day within 10–60 min (SV and MCH).

Results:
Intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.989 (CI = 0.98–0.994). Regression analysis of our data did not prove any systemic bias of difference according to MGC score (p = 0.616). Spearman correlation coefficient for the absolute difference in MGC value and the mean MGC of individual patients was 0.561.

Conclusion:
MG Composite is an effective tool for long-term monitoring of patients, evaluation of treatment effect and comparing data suitable for use in routine clinical practice.

Key words:
myasthenia – score – Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Zdroje

1. Burns TM. History of outcome measures for myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve 2010; 42 (1): 5–13. doi: 10.1002/mus.21713.

2. Barohn RJ, McIntire D, Herbelin L, et al. Reliability testing of the quantitative myasthenia gravis score. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 841: 769–72.

3. Sanders DB, Tucker-Lipscomb B, Massey JM. A simple manual muscle test for myasthenia gravis: validation and comparison with the QMG score. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003; 998: 440–4.

4. Wolfe GI, Herbelin L, Nations SP, et al. Myasthenia gravis activities of daily living profile. Neurology 1999; 52 (7): 1487–9.

5. Wolfe GI, Barohn RJ, Sanders DB, et al. Comparison of outcome measures from a trial of mycophenolate mofetil in myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve 2008; 38 (5): 1429–33. doi: 10.1002/mus.21142.

6. Burns TM, Conaway MR, Cutter GR, et al. Construction of an efficient evaluative instrument for myasthenia gravis: the MG composite. Muscle Nerve 2008; 38 (6): 1553–62. doi: 10.1002/mus.21185.

7. Sanders DB, Hart IK, Mantegazza R, et al. An international, phase III, randomized trial of mycophenolate mofetil in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2008; 71 (6): 400–6. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000312374.95186.cc.

8. Muscle Study Group. A trial of mycophenolate mofetil with prednisone as initial immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2008; 71 (6): 394–9. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000312373.67493.7f.

9. Burns TM, Conaway M, Sanders DB, et al. The MG Composite: a valid and reliable outcome measure for myasthenia gravis. Neurology 2010; 74 (18): 1434–40. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181dc1b1e.

10. Sadjadi R, Conaway M, Cutter G, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the myasthenia gravis composite using Rasch analysis. Muscle Nerve 2012; 45: 820–5. doi: 10.1002/mus.23260.

11. Benatar M, Sanders DB, Burns TM, et al. Recommendations for myasthenia gravis clinical trials. Muscle Nerve 2012; 45 (6): 909–17. doi: 10.1002/mus.23330.

12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25 (24): 3186–91.

13. Hallgren KA. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: an Overview and Tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2012; 8 (1): 23–34.

14. Burns TM. The MG composite: an outcome measure for myasthenia gravis for use in clinical trials and everyday practice. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2012; 1274: 99–106. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06812.x.

15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8 (2): 135–60.