JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A comparison of three measures of upper limb function in Friedreich ataxia.

Friedreich Ataxia (FRDA) is the commonest inherited ataxia. Clinical trials of pharmaceuticals are increasingly being conducted in this condition. This requires the most accurate outcome measures to enable trials to be conducted with a minimum number of subjects in the shortest time frame and to minimize the risk of false negative results. Upper limb function is a major area of morbidity in FRDA. We therefore have compared the performance of three tests of upper limb function in FRDA: the Nine Hole Peg Test (9HPT), Box and Blocks Test (BBT) and Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT). This study was undertaken to ascertain the best test for inclusion in a Friedreich Ataxia Functional Composite (FAFC) test for use in clinical studies and therapeutic trials. The three tests were administered to the dominant and non-dominant upper limbs of 38 individuals with genetically proven FRDA on two occasions, 12 months apart. The results of testing were correlated with the following disease parameters; age at disease onset, disease duration and score for the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS). The responsiveness to change of each test was assessed by measuring the effect size and calculations of the number of subjects required for similarly powered therapeutic trials. Results for all tests correlated significantly with disease duration and FARS score. The only test scores that changed significantly over 12 months were those for the non-dominant 9HPT and BBT. Scores for these two tests also had the largest effect sizes and required the fewest subjects for similarly powered therapeutic trials. We conclude, therefore, that the non-dominant 9HPT and BBT are the best tests for inclusion in a FAFC. Since the 9HPT has already been suggested for inclusion in a FAFC, we recommend that this test is used but that it is the non-dominant limb that is tested.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app