↓ Skip to main content

Content validity and clinical meaningfulness of the HFMSE in spinal muscular atrophy

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, February 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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.
Title
Content validity and clinical meaningfulness of the HFMSE in spinal muscular atrophy
Published in
BMC Neurology, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12883-017-0790-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria C. Pera, Giorgia Coratti, Nicola Forcina, Elena S. Mazzone, Mariacristina Scoto, Jacqueline Montes, Amy Pasternak, Anna Mayhew, Sonia Messina, Maria Sframeli, Marion Main, Robert Muni Lofra, Tina Duong, Danielle Ramsey, Sally Dunaway, Rachel Salazar, Lavinia Fanelli, Matthew Civitello, Roberto de Sanctis, Laura Antonaci, Leonardo Lapenta, Simona Lucibello, Marika Pane, John Day, Basil T. Darras, Darryl C. De Vivo, Francesco Muntoni, Richard Finkel, Eugenio Mercuri

Abstract

Reports on the clinical meaningfulness of outcome measures in spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are rare. In this two-part study, our aim was to explore patients' and caregivers' views on the clinical relevance of the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded- (HFMSE). First, we used focus groups including SMA patients and caregivers to explore their views on the clinical relevance of the individual activities included in the HFMSE. Then we asked caregivers to comment on the clinical relevance of possible changes of HFMSE scores over time. As functional data of individual patients were available, some of the questions were tailored according to their functional level on the HFMSE. Part 1: Sixty-three individuals participated in the focus groups. This included 30 caregivers, 25 patients and 8 professionals who facilitated the discussion. The caregivers provided a comparison to activities of daily living for each of the HFMSE items. Part 2: One hundred and forty-nine caregivers agreed to complete the questionnaire: in response to a general question, 72% of the caregivers would consider taking part in a clinical trial if the treatment was expected to slow down deterioration, 88% if it would stop deterioration and 97% if the treatment was expected to produce an improvement. Caregivers were informed of the first three items that their child could not achieve on the HFMSE. In response 75% indicated a willingness to take part in a clinical trial if they could achieve at least one of these abilities, 89% if they could achieve two, and 100% if they could achieve more than 2. Our findings support the use of the HFMSE as a key outcome measure in SMA clinical trials because the individual items and the detected changes have clear content validity and clinical meaningfulness for patients and their caregivers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 146 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Other 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 29 20%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 26%
Neuroscience 17 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 44 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 07 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,451,010
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#256
of 2,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,657
of 311,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#4
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,468 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 311,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.