IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239064.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Test-retest reliability of the Performance of Upper Limb (PUL) module for muscular dystrophy patients

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Gandolla
  • Alberto Antonietti
  • Valeria Longatelli
  • Emilia Biffi
  • Eleonora Diella
  • Morena Delle Fave
  • Mauro Rossini
  • Franco Molteni
  • Grazia D’Angelo
  • Marco Bocciolone
  • Alessandra Pedrocchi

Abstract

The Performance of the Upper Limb (PUL) module is an externally-assessed clinical scale, initially designed for the Duchenne muscular dystrophy population. It provides an upper extremity functional score suitable for both weaker ambulatory and non-ambulatory phases up to the severely impaired patients. It is capable of characterizing overall progression and severity of disease and of tracking the stereotypical proximal-to-distal progressive loss of upper limb function in muscular dystrophy. Since the PUL module has been validated only with Duchenne patients, its use also for Becker and Limb-Girdle muscular dystrophy patients has been here evaluated, to verify its reliability and extend its use. In particular, two different assessors performed this scale on 32 dystrophic subjects in two consecutive days. The results showed that the PUL module has high reliability, both absolute and relative, based on the calculation of Pearson’s r (0.9942), Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (0.9943), Standard Error of Measurement (1.36), Minimum Detectable Change (3.77), and Coefficient of Variation (3%). The Minimum Detectable Change, in particular, can be used in clinical trials to perform a comprehensive longitudinal evaluation of the effects of interventions with the lapse of time. According to this analysis, an intervention is effective if the difference in the PUL score between subsequent evaluation points is equal or higher than 4 points; otherwise, the observed effect is not relevant. Inter-rater reliability with ten different assessors was evaluated, and it has been demonstrated that deviation from the mean is lower than calculated Minimum Detectable Change. The present work provides evidence that the PUL module is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring upper limb ability in people with different forms of muscular dystrophy. Therefore, the PUL module might be extended to other pathologies and reliably used in multicenter settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Gandolla & Alberto Antonietti & Valeria Longatelli & Emilia Biffi & Eleonora Diella & Morena Delle Fave & Mauro Rossini & Franco Molteni & Grazia D’Angelo & Marco Bocciolone & Alessandra Pedrocc, 2020. "Test-retest reliability of the Performance of Upper Limb (PUL) module for muscular dystrophy patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239064
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239064
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239064
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239064&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239064?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0239064. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.