Comparison of the King s and MiToS staging systems for ALS.pdf (1.05 MB)
Comparison of the King’s and MiToS staging systems for ALS
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-09, 04:57 authored by Ton Fang, Ahmed Al Khleifat, Daniel R Stahl, Claudia Lazo La Torre, Caroline Murphy, Carolyn Young, Pamela J Shaw, Nigel LeighNigel Leigh, Ammar Al-Chalabi, UK-MND LiCALSObjective: To investigate and compare two ALS staging systems, King’s clinical staging and Milano-Torino (MiToS) functional staging, using data from the LiCALS phase III clinical trial (EudraCT 2008-006891-31). Methods: Disease stage was derived retrospectively for each system from the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised subscores using standard methods. The two staging methods were then compared for timing of stages using box plots, correspondence using chi-square tests, agreement using a linearly weighted kappa coefficient and concordance using Spearman’s rank correlation. Results: For both systems, progressively higher stages occurred at progressively later proportions of the disease course, but the distribution differed between the two methods. King’s stage 3 corresponded to MiToS stage 1 most frequently, with earlier King’s stages 1 and 2 largely corresponding to MiToS stage 0 or 1. The Spearman correlation was 0.54. There was fair agreement between the two systems with kappa coefficient of 0.21. Conclusion: The distribution of timings shows that the two systems are complementary, with King’s staging showing greatest resolution in early to mid-disease corresponding to clinical or disease burden, and MiToS staging having higher resolution for late disease, corresponding to functional involvement. We therefore propose using both staging systems when describing ALS.
History
Publication status
- Published
File Version
- Published version
Journal
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal DegenerationISSN
2167-8421Publisher
Informa HealthcareExternal DOI
Issue
3-4Volume
18Page range
227-232Department affiliated with
- BSMS Neuroscience Publications
Full text available
- Yes
Peer reviewed?
- Yes
Legacy Posted Date
2017-01-27First Open Access (FOA) Date
2017-07-03First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date
2017-07-03Usage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedLicence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC