Psychometric Characteristics of the Motor Function Measure in Neuromuscular Diseases: A Systematic Review1.
Outcome assessment
natural history
neuromuscular diseases
systematic review
validation study
Journal
Journal of neuromuscular diseases
ISSN: 2214-3602
Titre abrégé: J Neuromuscul Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101649948
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
medline:
9
5
2023
pubmed:
1
5
2023
entrez:
1
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Recent pharmaceutical breakthroughs in neuromuscular diseases may considerably change the prognosis and natural history these diseases. The ability to measure clinically relevant outcomes such as motor function is critical for the assessment of therapeutics and the follow up of individuals. The Motor Function Measure (MFM) is a quantitative scale designed to measure motor function in adult and children with neuromuscular disease (NMD). The objective of this study is to assess the quality and level of evidence of the MFM's published measurement properties by completing a systematic review of the validation and responsiveness studies of the MFM20 (a 20-item version of MFM adapted for children 2 to 6 years of age) and the MFM32 (the original 32 item version), in all NMDs and in specific diseases. A search for MFM responsiveness and MFM validation studies was completed in February 2023 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The PRISMA guidelines and the COSMIN manual for systematic reviews were followed for databases searches, articles screening and selection, study quality and measurement properties evaluation. 49 studies were included in analysis. In studies including individuals with all NMDs, MFM's internal consistency, reliability, convergent validity, construct validity and responsiveness were rated as sufficient with a high quality of evidence. Structural validity was rated sufficient with a moderate quality of evidence In SMA in particular, MFM's reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity and responsiveness are sufficient with a high quality of evidence. More studies would be required to assess specific measurement properties in different diseases. MFM32's minimal clinically relevant difference has been defined between 2 and 6%. MFM's structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, convergent validity and responsiveness have been verified with moderate to high level of evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Recent pharmaceutical breakthroughs in neuromuscular diseases may considerably change the prognosis and natural history these diseases. The ability to measure clinically relevant outcomes such as motor function is critical for the assessment of therapeutics and the follow up of individuals. The Motor Function Measure (MFM) is a quantitative scale designed to measure motor function in adult and children with neuromuscular disease (NMD).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to assess the quality and level of evidence of the MFM's published measurement properties by completing a systematic review of the validation and responsiveness studies of the MFM20 (a 20-item version of MFM adapted for children 2 to 6 years of age) and the MFM32 (the original 32 item version), in all NMDs and in specific diseases.
METHODS
METHODS
A search for MFM responsiveness and MFM validation studies was completed in February 2023 in EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The PRISMA guidelines and the COSMIN manual for systematic reviews were followed for databases searches, articles screening and selection, study quality and measurement properties evaluation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
49 studies were included in analysis. In studies including individuals with all NMDs, MFM's internal consistency, reliability, convergent validity, construct validity and responsiveness were rated as sufficient with a high quality of evidence. Structural validity was rated sufficient with a moderate quality of evidence In SMA in particular, MFM's reliability, internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity and responsiveness are sufficient with a high quality of evidence. More studies would be required to assess specific measurement properties in different diseases. MFM32's minimal clinically relevant difference has been defined between 2 and 6%.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
MFM's structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, construct validity, convergent validity and responsiveness have been verified with moderate to high level of evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37125561
pii: JND230001
doi: 10.3233/JND-230001
pmc: PMC10408216
mid: NIHMS1912257
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
301-314Subventions
Organisme : Intramural NIH HHS
ID : Z99 CL999999
Pays : United States
Références
J Vis Exp. 2019 Jan 12;(143):
pubmed: 30688316
Neuromuscul Disord. 2014 Apr;24(4):347-52
pubmed: 24491485
J Child Neurol. 2011 Dec;26(12):1499-507
pubmed: 21940700
Neuromuscul Disord. 2010 Nov;20(11):712-6
pubmed: 20634072
J Chronic Dis. 1960 Aug;12:273-90
pubmed: 13842210
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2017 Apr 11;4(5):292-304
pubmed: 28491897
Dev Neurorehabil. 2020 May;23(4):210-217
pubmed: 31307263
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010 Jan;52(1):60-5
pubmed: 19453691
Muscle Nerve. 1981 May-Jun;4(3):186-97
pubmed: 7017401
Neuromuscul Disord. 2005 Jul;15(7):463-70
pubmed: 16106528
J Neuromuscul Dis. 2020;7(1):1-13
pubmed: 31707373
Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014 Dec;57(9-10):587-99
pubmed: 25311851
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021 Oct;8(10):1938-1950
pubmed: 34453498
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021 Apr;102(4):604-610
pubmed: 33166523
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Nov;94(11):2218-26
pubmed: 23602884
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Sep;99(9):1776-1782.e9
pubmed: 29625093
Neurology. 2019 Jan 09;:
pubmed: 30626655
Neuromuscul Disord. 2015 Jan;25(1):43-54
pubmed: 25307854
Dev Neurorehabil. 2022 Aug;25(6):370-377
pubmed: 34964685
J Int Med Res. 2017 Feb;45(1):261-271
pubmed: 28222643
Turk J Med Sci. 2017 Dec 19;47(6):1826-1833
pubmed: 29306245
Neurol Ther. 2020 Dec;9(2):575-584
pubmed: 32856191
PLoS One. 2020 Sep 18;15(9):e0238786
pubmed: 32946459
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Aug;94(8):1555-61
pubmed: 23380348
Int J Rehabil Res. 2021 Mar 1;44(1):38-44
pubmed: 33165002
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Nov;95(11):2086-95
pubmed: 24973498
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2010 Jan;166(1):49-53
pubmed: 19524275
Orthop Res Rev. 2022 Feb 17;14:35-42
pubmed: 35210873
Neuromuscul Disord. 2021 Nov;31(11):1136-1143
pubmed: 34711479
Neurology. 2019 Nov 19;93(21):e1932-e1943
pubmed: 31653707
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2021 Feb;8(2):359-373
pubmed: 33369268
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016 Mar 04;3(4):248-65
pubmed: 27081656
J Neurol. 2021 May;268(5):1792-1802
pubmed: 33388927
Neurology. 2019 Apr 16;92(16):e1852-e1867
pubmed: 30902907
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018 Feb;60(2):185-191
pubmed: 28990163
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Dec;93(12):2251-6.e1
pubmed: 22705238
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 02;10(2):e0113999
pubmed: 25643053
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2022 Dec;64(12):1453-1461
pubmed: 35862363
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801