IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0105123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Typical Multiple Sclerosis Disability Progression Speed from Clinical Observations

Author

Listed:
  • Murray G Brown
  • Mark Asbridge
  • Vern Hicks
  • Sarah Kirby
  • Thomas J Murray
  • Pantelis Andreou
  • Dong Lin

Abstract

Introduction: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system. Estimates of MS natural history (NH) disability progression speed from clinical observations vary worldwide. This may reflect, in part, variance in censoring-bias) (missing observations) and assumptions about when irreversible disability progression events occurred. We test whether estimates of progression speed which assume midpoint survival time at irreversible disability endpoints are significantly faster than estimates which assume maximum survival time, and are more stable across study groups and time periods. Methods: Our Nova Scotia NH study population includes 2,240 definite relapsing-onset multiple sclerosis (R-MS) natural history patients with 18,078 Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) clinical observations in study period 1979–2010. Progression speed is measured by rate-of-change in range EDSS 0–6 and by survival time at irreversible endpoints EDSS 1–9. Midpoint censoring-bias-reduction methods are applied to clinical observations. Findings: Typical EDSS increase per year in range EDSS 0–6, assuming midpoint survival time, is estimated to be 0.168 for all R-MS, 0.204 for eventually-DMD-treated patients and 0.155 for never-DMD-treated patients. Estimates assuming midpoint rather than maximum survival time are significantly faster: 16% faster for all R-MS natural history patients, 6% faster for eventually-DMD-treated patients, and 21% faster for never-DMD-treated patients. The variability of estimates across study groups and time periods decreased when midpoint survival time was assumed. Conclusions: Estimates of typical disease progression speed from 1979–2010 Nova Scotia clinical observations are sensitive to censoring-bias and to analysts’ survival time assumptions. Censoring-bias-adjusted estimates of typical natural history disability progression speed in relapsing-onset multiple sclerosis patients are significantly faster, and less variable within and across study groups and time periods, than unadjusted estimates, and are, arguably, more relevant for various stakeholders. The application of censoring-bias-reduction methods to other multiple sclerosis clinical databases may reduce variability in estimates of disability progression speed worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Murray G Brown & Mark Asbridge & Vern Hicks & Sarah Kirby & Thomas J Murray & Pantelis Andreou & Dong Lin, 2014. "Estimating Typical Multiple Sclerosis Disability Progression Speed from Clinical Observations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105123
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105123
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105123&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0105123?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuchao Zhao & H. Christopher Frey, 2004. "Quantification of Variability and Uncertainty for Censored Data Sets and Application to Air Toxic Emission Factors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1019-1034, August.
    2. Lantz, Paula M. & Booth, Karen M., 1998. "The social construction of the breast cancer epidemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 907-918, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barker, Kristin K. & Galardi, Tasha R., 2011. "Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(8), pages 1351-1358, April.
    2. Junyu Zheng & H. Christopher Frey, 2005. "Quantitative Analysis of Variability and Uncertainty with Known Measurement Error: Methodology and Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 663-675, June.
    3. Barg, Frances K. & Grier, Sonya A., 2008. "Enhancing breast cancer communications: A cultural models approach," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 335-342.
    4. Radin, Patricia, 2006. ""To me, it's my life": Medical communication, trust, and activism in cyberspace," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 591-601, February.
    5. Gollust, Sarah E. & Lantz, Paula M., 2009. "Communicating population health: Print news media coverage of type 2 diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1091-1098, October.
    6. Waggoner, Miranda R., 2013. "Parsing the peanut panic: The social life of a contested food allergy epidemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 49-55.
    7. Mayer, Brian, 2012. "‘Relax and take a deep breath’: Print media coverage of asthma and air pollution in the United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(5), pages 892-900.
    8. Clarke, Juanne N. & Everest, Michelle M., 2006. "Cancer in the mass print media: Fear, uncertainty and the medical model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2591-2600, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.