TY - JOUR
T1 - A Comparison of Fatigue Scales in Postpoliomyelitis Syndrome
AU - Vasconcelos, Olavo M.
AU - Prokhorenko, Olga A.
AU - Kelley, Kay F.
AU - Vo, Alexander H.
AU - Olsen, Cara H.
AU - Dalakas, Marinos C.
AU - Halstead, Lauro S.
AU - Jabbari, Bahman
AU - Campbell, William W.
PY - 2006/9
Y1 - 2006/9
N2 - Vasconcelos Jr OM, Prokhorenko OA, Kelley KF, Vo AH, Olsen CH, Dalakas MC, Halstead LS, Jabbari B, Campbell WW. A comparison of fatigue scales in postpoliomyelitis syndrome. Objective: To examine the applicability and validity of traditional fatigue questionnaires in postpoliomyelitis syndrome (PPS) patients with disabling fatigue. Design: Cross-sectional study. PPS and disabling fatigue were ascertained according to published criteria. Descriptiveness was determined using the McNemar test, and interscale z-score agreement was estimated with Pearson's coefficients. Setting: PPS clinic. Participants: Fifty-six survivors of poliomyelitis: 39 met criteria for PPS, 25 of whom met criteria for disabling fatigue. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for fatigue, and Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS). Results: Twenty-four patients scored 50% or higher on the scale range for FSS, compared with 19 patients for VAS for fatigue (P=.042), and 7 patients for FIS (P<.001). Scores for patients with disabling fatigue averaged 81.5%, 62%, and 40.9% of the scale range for FSS, VAS for fatigue, and FIS, respectively. Agreement was moderate between the FSS and VAS for fatigue (r=.45, P=.02), but low between FSS and FIS (r=.29, P=.15), and FIS and VAS for fatigue (r=.20, P=.33). Two sample t tests showed significant differences between those with disabling fatigue and those without, based on FSS scores (t=3.8, P<.001), but not for VAS for fatigue or FIS scores. Conclusions: FSS was the most descriptive of the instruments tested. Scores generated by the scales were not interchangeable. Of the 3 scales, FFS seemed to be the most informative for the clinical assessment of fatigue in patients with PPS.
AB - Vasconcelos Jr OM, Prokhorenko OA, Kelley KF, Vo AH, Olsen CH, Dalakas MC, Halstead LS, Jabbari B, Campbell WW. A comparison of fatigue scales in postpoliomyelitis syndrome. Objective: To examine the applicability and validity of traditional fatigue questionnaires in postpoliomyelitis syndrome (PPS) patients with disabling fatigue. Design: Cross-sectional study. PPS and disabling fatigue were ascertained according to published criteria. Descriptiveness was determined using the McNemar test, and interscale z-score agreement was estimated with Pearson's coefficients. Setting: PPS clinic. Participants: Fifty-six survivors of poliomyelitis: 39 met criteria for PPS, 25 of whom met criteria for disabling fatigue. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for fatigue, and Fatigue Impact Scale (FIS). Results: Twenty-four patients scored 50% or higher on the scale range for FSS, compared with 19 patients for VAS for fatigue (P=.042), and 7 patients for FIS (P<.001). Scores for patients with disabling fatigue averaged 81.5%, 62%, and 40.9% of the scale range for FSS, VAS for fatigue, and FIS, respectively. Agreement was moderate between the FSS and VAS for fatigue (r=.45, P=.02), but low between FSS and FIS (r=.29, P=.15), and FIS and VAS for fatigue (r=.20, P=.33). Two sample t tests showed significant differences between those with disabling fatigue and those without, based on FSS scores (t=3.8, P<.001), but not for VAS for fatigue or FIS scores. Conclusions: FSS was the most descriptive of the instruments tested. Scores generated by the scales were not interchangeable. Of the 3 scales, FFS seemed to be the most informative for the clinical assessment of fatigue in patients with PPS.
KW - Fatigue
KW - Poliomyelitis
KW - Postpoliomyelitis syndrome
KW - Rehabilitation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33747771351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33747771351&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.06.009
DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.06.009
M3 - Article
C2 - 16935057
AN - SCOPUS:33747771351
SN - 0003-9993
VL - 87
SP - 1213
EP - 1217
JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
IS - 9
ER -