How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales

Background: Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), the most common genetic cause of ataxia, is characterised by progressive neurodegeneration and cardiomyopathy. Initial treatments are likely to slow progression rather than reverse morbidity. An appropriate and sensitive scale to measure disease progress is cr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry neurosurgery and psychiatry, 2007-04, Vol.78 (4), p.411-413
Hauptverfasser: Fahey, M C, Corben, L, Collins, V, Churchyard, A J, Delatycki, M B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 413
container_issue 4
container_start_page 411
container_title Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry
container_volume 78
creator Fahey, M C
Corben, L
Collins, V
Churchyard, A J
Delatycki, M B
description Background: Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), the most common genetic cause of ataxia, is characterised by progressive neurodegeneration and cardiomyopathy. Initial treatments are likely to slow progression rather than reverse morbidity. An appropriate and sensitive scale to measure disease progress is critical to detect the benefit of treatments. Objective: To compare the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) with other scales proposed as outcome measures for FRDA. Methods: 76 participants were assessed with the FARS and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and 72 of these participants were also assessed with the Functional Independence Measure and the Modified Barthel Index. 43 participants had repeat measures at an interval of 12 months. Sensitivity and responsiveness were assessed using the effect size for each measure and the sample size required for a placebo-controlled clinical trial. Results: The FARS showed a high correlation with the other three measures. A significant change in the score over 12 months was detected by the FARS, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale and the Functional Independence Measure. The FARS had the greatest effect size and requires fewer patients for an equivalently powered study. Conclusions: Of the scales assessed, the FARS is the best to use in clinical trials of FRDA. This is based on effect size, and power calculations that show that fewer participants are required to demonstrate the same effect of an intervention. Further work is required to develop more sensitive and responsive instruments.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/jnnp.2006.096008
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2077798</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70293809</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b623t-d6f146ba34062188962bbd2f2efbc279a7fa6644b05ff3159ba0b58a0759c19a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi0EosvCnROyhOCCsoztxI4vRdWKUmC1XABxQZad2Fsvm2SxE2hvvAavx5PgkFULXOqLD_PNr5n5EHpIYEEI48-3bbtfUAC-AMkByltoRnJeZozBp9toBkBpxqCAI3Qvxi2Mr5R30RERUHDOihn6fNZ9xz7i2kero8X70G2CjRH7Fp8Gb-tgfXX-68fPiHWvL7zGxsYeNwkegq1f4BMc-6G-xJ3DrhsCDrr37QbHSu9svI_uOL2L9sHhn6MPpy_fL8-y1btXr5cnq8xwyvqs5i6NbTTLgVNSlpJTY2rqqHWmokJq4TTneW6gcI6RQhoNpig1iEJWRGo2R8dT7n4wja0r2_ZB79Q--EaHS9Vpr_6ttP5cbbpvioIQQpYp4OkhIHRfh7Shanys7G6nW9sNUQmgkpUgbwSJzHNJ_4CP_wO36TxtuoIioiQ0TyYgUTBRVehiDNZdzUxAjYrVqFiNitWkOLU8-nvX64aD0wQ8OQB6tOCCbisfr7mSMwope46yifOxtxdXdR2-KC6YKNT641Kt10DfvllxJRL_bOJNs715zN8r4c0S</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781240890</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Fahey, M C ; Corben, L ; Collins, V ; Churchyard, A J ; Delatycki, M B</creator><creatorcontrib>Fahey, M C ; Corben, L ; Collins, V ; Churchyard, A J ; Delatycki, M B</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), the most common genetic cause of ataxia, is characterised by progressive neurodegeneration and cardiomyopathy. Initial treatments are likely to slow progression rather than reverse morbidity. An appropriate and sensitive scale to measure disease progress is critical to detect the benefit of treatments. Objective: To compare the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) with other scales proposed as outcome measures for FRDA. Methods: 76 participants were assessed with the FARS and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and 72 of these participants were also assessed with the Functional Independence Measure and the Modified Barthel Index. 43 participants had repeat measures at an interval of 12 months. Sensitivity and responsiveness were assessed using the effect size for each measure and the sample size required for a placebo-controlled clinical trial. Results: The FARS showed a high correlation with the other three measures. A significant change in the score over 12 months was detected by the FARS, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale and the Functional Independence Measure. The FARS had the greatest effect size and requires fewer patients for an equivalently powered study. Conclusions: Of the scales assessed, the FARS is the best to use in clinical trials of FRDA. This is based on effect size, and power calculations that show that fewer participants are required to demonstrate the same effect of an intervention. Further work is required to develop more sensitive and responsive instruments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3050</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-330X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2006.096008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17056635</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JNNPAU</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Activities of Daily Living ; ADL ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Age ; Ataxia ; Biological and medical sciences ; Child ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Degenerative and inherited degenerative diseases of the nervous system. Leukodystrophies. Prion diseases ; Disease Progression ; Endpoint Determination ; FARS ; Female ; FIM ; FRDA ; Friedreich Ataxia - classification ; Friedreich Ataxia - pathology ; Friedreich Ataxia - therapy ; Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale ; Friedreich’s ataxia ; Functional Independence Measure ; Headache. Facial pains. Syncopes. Epilepsia. Intracranial hypertension. Brain oedema. Cerebral palsy ; Humans ; ICARS ; International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale ; Male ; MBI ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Modified Barthel Index ; Mutation ; Nervous system (semeiology, syndromes) ; Neurology ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Severity of Illness Index ; Short Report ; Statistical analysis ; Substance abuse treatment ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry, 2007-04, Vol.78 (4), p.411-413</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2007 Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright: 2007 Copyright 2007 Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry</rights><rights>Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b623t-d6f146ba34062188962bbd2f2efbc279a7fa6644b05ff3159ba0b58a0759c19a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jnnp.bmj.com/content/78/4/411.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jnnp.bmj.com/content/78/4/411.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,230,314,723,776,780,881,3183,23550,27901,27902,53766,53768,77343,77374</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=18632011$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17056635$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fahey, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corben, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collins, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Churchyard, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delatycki, M B</creatorcontrib><title>How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales</title><title>Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry</title><addtitle>J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry</addtitle><description>Background: Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), the most common genetic cause of ataxia, is characterised by progressive neurodegeneration and cardiomyopathy. Initial treatments are likely to slow progression rather than reverse morbidity. An appropriate and sensitive scale to measure disease progress is critical to detect the benefit of treatments. Objective: To compare the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) with other scales proposed as outcome measures for FRDA. Methods: 76 participants were assessed with the FARS and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and 72 of these participants were also assessed with the Functional Independence Measure and the Modified Barthel Index. 43 participants had repeat measures at an interval of 12 months. Sensitivity and responsiveness were assessed using the effect size for each measure and the sample size required for a placebo-controlled clinical trial. Results: The FARS showed a high correlation with the other three measures. A significant change in the score over 12 months was detected by the FARS, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale and the Functional Independence Measure. The FARS had the greatest effect size and requires fewer patients for an equivalently powered study. Conclusions: Of the scales assessed, the FARS is the best to use in clinical trials of FRDA. This is based on effect size, and power calculations that show that fewer participants are required to demonstrate the same effect of an intervention. Further work is required to develop more sensitive and responsive instruments.</description><subject>Activities of Daily Living</subject><subject>ADL</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Ataxia</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Degenerative and inherited degenerative diseases of the nervous system. Leukodystrophies. Prion diseases</subject><subject>Disease Progression</subject><subject>Endpoint Determination</subject><subject>FARS</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>FIM</subject><subject>FRDA</subject><subject>Friedreich Ataxia - classification</subject><subject>Friedreich Ataxia - pathology</subject><subject>Friedreich Ataxia - therapy</subject><subject>Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale</subject><subject>Friedreich’s ataxia</subject><subject>Functional Independence Measure</subject><subject>Headache. Facial pains. Syncopes. Epilepsia. Intracranial hypertension. Brain oedema. Cerebral palsy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>ICARS</subject><subject>International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>MBI</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Modified Barthel Index</subject><subject>Mutation</subject><subject>Nervous system (semeiology, syndromes)</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Short Report</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Substance abuse treatment</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0022-3050</issn><issn>1468-330X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhi0EosvCnROyhOCCsoztxI4vRdWKUmC1XABxQZad2Fsvm2SxE2hvvAavx5PgkFULXOqLD_PNr5n5EHpIYEEI48-3bbtfUAC-AMkByltoRnJeZozBp9toBkBpxqCAI3Qvxi2Mr5R30RERUHDOihn6fNZ9xz7i2kero8X70G2CjRH7Fp8Gb-tgfXX-68fPiHWvL7zGxsYeNwkegq1f4BMc-6G-xJ3DrhsCDrr37QbHSu9svI_uOL2L9sHhn6MPpy_fL8-y1btXr5cnq8xwyvqs5i6NbTTLgVNSlpJTY2rqqHWmokJq4TTneW6gcI6RQhoNpig1iEJWRGo2R8dT7n4wja0r2_ZB79Q--EaHS9Vpr_6ttP5cbbpvioIQQpYp4OkhIHRfh7Shanys7G6nW9sNUQmgkpUgbwSJzHNJ_4CP_wO36TxtuoIioiQ0TyYgUTBRVehiDNZdzUxAjYrVqFiNitWkOLU8-nvX64aD0wQ8OQB6tOCCbisfr7mSMwope46yifOxtxdXdR2-KC6YKNT641Kt10DfvllxJRL_bOJNs715zN8r4c0S</recordid><startdate>20070401</startdate><enddate>20070401</enddate><creator>Fahey, M C</creator><creator>Corben, L</creator><creator>Collins, V</creator><creator>Churchyard, A J</creator><creator>Delatycki, M B</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070401</creationdate><title>How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales</title><author>Fahey, M C ; Corben, L ; Collins, V ; Churchyard, A J ; Delatycki, M B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b623t-d6f146ba34062188962bbd2f2efbc279a7fa6644b05ff3159ba0b58a0759c19a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Activities of Daily Living</topic><topic>ADL</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Ataxia</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Degenerative and inherited degenerative diseases of the nervous system. Leukodystrophies. Prion diseases</topic><topic>Disease Progression</topic><topic>Endpoint Determination</topic><topic>FARS</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>FIM</topic><topic>FRDA</topic><topic>Friedreich Ataxia - classification</topic><topic>Friedreich Ataxia - pathology</topic><topic>Friedreich Ataxia - therapy</topic><topic>Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale</topic><topic>Friedreich’s ataxia</topic><topic>Functional Independence Measure</topic><topic>Headache. Facial pains. Syncopes. Epilepsia. Intracranial hypertension. Brain oedema. Cerebral palsy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>ICARS</topic><topic>International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>MBI</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Modified Barthel Index</topic><topic>Mutation</topic><topic>Nervous system (semeiology, syndromes)</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Short Report</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Substance abuse treatment</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fahey, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corben, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Collins, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Churchyard, A J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delatycki, M B</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fahey, M C</au><au>Corben, L</au><au>Collins, V</au><au>Churchyard, A J</au><au>Delatycki, M B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales</atitle><jtitle>Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry</jtitle><addtitle>J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry</addtitle><date>2007-04-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>78</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>411</spage><epage>413</epage><pages>411-413</pages><issn>0022-3050</issn><eissn>1468-330X</eissn><coden>JNNPAU</coden><abstract>Background: Friedreich’s ataxia (FRDA), the most common genetic cause of ataxia, is characterised by progressive neurodegeneration and cardiomyopathy. Initial treatments are likely to slow progression rather than reverse morbidity. An appropriate and sensitive scale to measure disease progress is critical to detect the benefit of treatments. Objective: To compare the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) with other scales proposed as outcome measures for FRDA. Methods: 76 participants were assessed with the FARS and the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS) and 72 of these participants were also assessed with the Functional Independence Measure and the Modified Barthel Index. 43 participants had repeat measures at an interval of 12 months. Sensitivity and responsiveness were assessed using the effect size for each measure and the sample size required for a placebo-controlled clinical trial. Results: The FARS showed a high correlation with the other three measures. A significant change in the score over 12 months was detected by the FARS, the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale and the Functional Independence Measure. The FARS had the greatest effect size and requires fewer patients for an equivalently powered study. Conclusions: Of the scales assessed, the FARS is the best to use in clinical trials of FRDA. This is based on effect size, and power calculations that show that fewer participants are required to demonstrate the same effect of an intervention. Further work is required to develop more sensitive and responsive instruments.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>17056635</pmid><doi>10.1136/jnnp.2006.096008</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3050
ispartof Journal of neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry, 2007-04, Vol.78 (4), p.411-413
issn 0022-3050
1468-330X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2077798
source MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Activities of Daily Living
ADL
Adolescent
Adult
Age
Ataxia
Biological and medical sciences
Child
Clinical trials
Clinical Trials as Topic
Degenerative and inherited degenerative diseases of the nervous system. Leukodystrophies. Prion diseases
Disease Progression
Endpoint Determination
FARS
Female
FIM
FRDA
Friedreich Ataxia - classification
Friedreich Ataxia - pathology
Friedreich Ataxia - therapy
Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale
Friedreich’s ataxia
Functional Independence Measure
Headache. Facial pains. Syncopes. Epilepsia. Intracranial hypertension. Brain oedema. Cerebral palsy
Humans
ICARS
International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale
Male
MBI
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Modified Barthel Index
Mutation
Nervous system (semeiology, syndromes)
Neurology
Sensitivity and Specificity
Severity of Illness Index
Short Report
Statistical analysis
Substance abuse treatment
Treatment Outcome
title How is disease progress in Friedreich’s ataxia best measured? A study of four rating scales
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T16%3A03%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20is%20disease%20progress%20in%20Friedreich%E2%80%99s%20ataxia%20best%20measured?%20A%20study%20of%20four%20rating%20scales&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20neurology,%20neurosurgery%20and%20psychiatry&rft.au=Fahey,%20M%20C&rft.date=2007-04-01&rft.volume=78&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=411&rft.epage=413&rft.pages=411-413&rft.issn=0022-3050&rft.eissn=1468-330X&rft.coden=JNNPAU&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/jnnp.2006.096008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E70293809%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781240890&rft_id=info:pmid/17056635&rfr_iscdi=true