Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 9 , Pages 1478-1488 , September 2009

Physical and Cognitive Functioning After 3 Years Can Be Predicted Using Information From the Diagnostic Process in Recently Diagnosed Multiple Sclerosis

  • Vincent de Groot, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Vincent de Groot, MD, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Heleen Beckerman, PT, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Bernard M. Uitdehaag, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Rogier Q. Hintzen, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Arjan Minneboo, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Martijn W. Heymans, PhD

      Affiliations

    • EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Gustaaf J. Lankhorst, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Chris H. Polman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Lex M. Bouter, PhD

      Affiliations

    • EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • ,
  • Functional Prognostication and Disability (FuPro) Study Group

References 

  1. Janssens AC, De Boer JB, Van Doorn PA, et al. Expectations of wheelchair-dependency in recently diagnosed patients with multiple sclerosis and their partners. Eur J Neurol. 2003;10:287–293
  2. Janssens AC, Van Doorn PA, De Boer JB, Van der Meché FG, Passchier J, Hintzen RQ. Perception of prognostic risk in patients with multiple sclerosis: the relationship with anxiety, depression, and disease-related distress. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:180–186
  3. Runmarker B, Andersson C, Oden A, Andersen O. Prediction of outcome in multiple sclerosis based on multivariate models. J Neurol. 1994;241:597–604
  4. Runmarker B, Andersen O. Prognostic factors in a multiple sclerosis incidence cohort with twenty-five years of follow-up. Brain. 1993;116:117–134
  5. Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GPA, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study (2. Predictive value of the early clinical course). Brain. 1989;112:1419–1428
  6. Weinshenker BG, Bass B, Rice GPA, et al. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study (I. Clinical course and disability). Brain. 1989;112:133–146
  7. Weinshenker BG, Rice GPA, Noseworthy JH, Carriere W, Baskerville J, Ebers GC. The natural history of multiple sclerosis: a geographically based study (3. Multivariate analysis of predictive factors and models of outcome). Brain. 1991;114:1045–1056
  8. Amato MP, Ponziani G. A prospective study on the prognosis of multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci. 2000;21:S831–S838
  9. Confavreux C, Vukusic S, Adeleine P. Early clinical predictors and progression of irreversible disability in multiple sclerosis: an amnesic process. Brain. 2003;126:770–782
  10. Pittock SJ, Mayr WT, McClelland RL, et al. Change in MS-related disability in a population-based cohort: a 10-year follow-up study. Neurology. 2004;62:51–59
  11. Matheny ME, Ohno-Machado L, Resnic FS. Discrimination and calibration of mortality risk prediction models in interventional cardiology. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38:367–375
  12. Harrison DA, Brady AR, Parry GJ, Carpenter JR, Rowan K. Recalibration of risk prediction models in a large multicenter cohort of admissions to adult, general critical care units in the United Kingdom. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1378–1388
  13. Perel P, Arango M, Clayton T, et al. Predicting outcome after traumatic brain injury: practical prognostic models based on large cohort of international patients. BMJ. 2008;336:425–429
  14. Van Koningsveld R, Steyerberg EW, Hughes RA, Swan AV, Van Doorn PA, Jacobs BC. A clinical prognostic scoring system for Guillain-Barre syndrome. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:589–594
  15. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Harrell FE, Habbema JD. Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets. Stat Med. 2000;19:1059–1079
  16. Bergamaschi R, Quaglini S, Trojano M, et al. Early prediction of the long term evolution of multiple sclerosis: the Bayesian Risk Estimate for Multiple Sclerosis (BREMS) score. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:757–759
  17. Poser CM, Paty DW, Scheinberg L, et al. New diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: guidelines for research protocols. Ann Neurol. 1983;13:227–231
  18. De Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst GJ, Polman CH, Bouter LM. The initial course of daily functioning in multiple sclerosis: a three-year follow-up study. Mult Scler. 2005;11:713–718
  19. De Groot V, Beckerman H, Twisk JW, et al. Vitality, perceived social support and disease activity determine the performance of social roles in recently diagnosed multiple sclerosis: a longitudinal analysis. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40:151–157
  20. Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33:1444–1452
  21. Uitdehaag BMJ, Adèr HJ, Roosma TJ, De Groot V, Kalkers NF, Polman CH. Multiple sclerosis functional composite: impact of reference population and interpretation of changes. Mult Scler. 2002;8:366–371
  22. Rao SM, Leo GJ, Bernardin L, Unverzagt F. Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis (I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction). Neurology. 1991;41:685–691
  23. Boringa JB, Lazeron RH, Reuling IE, et al. The brief repeatable battery of neuropsychological tests: normative values allow application in multiple sclerosis clinical practice. Mult Scler. 2001;7:263–267
  24. Achiron A, Barak Y. Cognitive impairment in probable multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74:443–446
  25. Granger CV, Cotter AC, Hamilton BB, Fiedler RC, Hens MM. Functional assessment scales: a study of persons with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1990;71:870–875
  26. Van Bennekom CAM, Jelles F, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM. The rehabilitation activities profile: a validation study of its use as a disability index with stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995;76:501–507
  27. Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1055–1068
  28. Laman H, Lankhorst GJ. Subjective weighting of disability: an approach to quality of life assessment in rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil. 1994;16:198–204
  29. Lankhorst GJ, Jelles F, Smits RCF, et al. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: the Disability and Impact Profile (DIP). J Neurol. 1996;243:469–474
  30. Kalkers NF, Bergers L, De Groot V, et al. Concurrent validity of the MS Functional Composite using MRI as a biological disease marker. Neurology. 2001;56:215–219
  31. Bot JC, Barkhof F, Polman CH, et al. Spinal cord abnormalities in recently diagnosed MS patients: added value of spinal MRI examination. Neurology. 2004;62:226–233
  32. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD. Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:935–942
  33. Steyerberg EW, Harrell FE, Borsboom GJ, Eijkemans MJ, Vergouwe Y, Habbema JD. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:774–781
  34. NORM: Multiple imputation of incomplete multivariate data under a normal model, version 2, 1999. Software for Windows 95/98/NT. Available at: http://www.stat.psu.edu/∼jls/misoftwa.html. Accessed August 16, 2009.
  35. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996;15:361–387
  36. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988;240:1285–1293
  37. Solari A, Mancuso L, Motta A, Mendozzi L, Serrati C. Comparison of two brief neuropsychological batteries in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2002;8:169–176
  38. Aupperle RL, Beatty WW, Shelton FN, Gontkovsky ST. Three screening batteries to detect cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2002;8:382–389
  39. Dent A, Lincoln NB. Screening for memory problems in multiple sclerosis. Br J Clin Psychol. 2000;39:311–315
  40. Hukkelhoven CW, Rampen AJ, Maas AI, et al. Some prognostic models for traumatic brain injury were not valid. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:132–143
  41. Bleeker SE, Moll HA, Steyerberg EW, et al. External validation is necessary in prediction research: a clinical example. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:826–832
  42. Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?. Stat Med. 2000;19:453–473
  43. Righini M, Bounameaux H. External validation and comparison of recently described prediction rules for suspected pulmonary embolism. Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2004;10:345–349
  44. Justice AC, Covinsky KE, Berlin JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:515–524
  45. Grol R, Grimshaw J. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet. 2003;362:1225–1230
  46. Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings (The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group). BMJ. 1998;317:465–468

 Supported by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (grant no. NWO 940-33-009).

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the authors or upon any organization with which the authors are associated.

 The Functional Prognostication and Disability (FuPro) Study Group includes the following investigators: G.J. Lankhorst, J. Dekker, A.J. Dallmeijer, M.J. IJzerman, H. Beckerman, V. de Groot: VU University Medical Center Amsterdam (project coordination); A.J.H. Prevo, E. Lindeman, V.P.M. Schepers: University Medical Center, Utrecht; H.J. Stam, E. Odding, B. van Baalen: Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam; A. Beelen, I.J.M. de Groot: Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam.

PII: S0003-9993(09)00397-9

doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.03.018

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 9 , Pages 1478-1488 , September 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution