↓ Skip to main content

Validation of patient determined disease steps (PDDS) scale scores in persons with multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

3 news outlets
3 tweeters


364 Dimensions

Readers on

194 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Validation of patient determined disease steps (PDDS) scale scores in persons with multiple sclerosis
Published in
BMC Neurology, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-13-37
Pubmed ID

Yvonne C Learmonth, Robert W Motl, Brian M Sandroff, John H Pula, Diego Cadavid


BACKGROUND: The Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) is a promising patient-reported outcome (PRO) of disability in multiple sclerosis (MS). To date, there is limited evidence regarding the validity of PDDS scores, despite its sound conceptual development and broad inclusion in MS research.This study examined the validity of the PDDS based on (1) the association with Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores and (2) the pattern of associations between PDDS and EDSS scores with Functional System (FS) scores as well as ambulatory and other outcomes. METHODS: 96 persons with MS provided demographic/clinical information, completed the PDDS and other PROs including the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12), and underwent a neurological examination for generating FS and EDSS scores. Participants completed assessments of cognition, ambulation including the 6-minute walk (6 MW), and wore an accelerometer during waking hours over seven days. RESULTS: There was a strong correlation between EDSS and PDDS scores (rho = .783). PDDS and EDSS scores were strongly correlated with Pyramidal (rho = .578 & rho = .647, respectively) and Cerebellar (rho = .501 & rho = .528, respectively) FS scores as well as 6 MW distance (rho = .704 & rho = .805, respectively), MSWS-12 scores (rho = .801 & rho = .729, respectively), and accelerometer steps/day (rho = -.740 & rho = -.717, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study provides novel evidence supporting the PDDS as valid PRO of disability in MS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 191 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 21 11%
Student > Master 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Other 48 25%
Unknown 29 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 32%
Neuroscience 20 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 41 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 October 2021.
All research outputs
of 19,998,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
of 2,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 170,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,998,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them