Clinical Meaningfulness of Individual Items of the Brief Ataxia Rating Scale and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia
This observational study evaluated the patient-perceived meaningfulness of individual items on the Brief Ataxia Rating Scale (BARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA). Thirty patients with cerebellar ataxia participated. The work received ethical approval from the Massachusetts General Hospital Human Studies Committee, and the authors report that all relevant patient consent and institutional approvals were obtained.
Participants completed clinician-administered BARS and SARA assessments, the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS) Functional Staging, and an Importance of Activities of Daily Living questionnaire designed to capture which scale items patients consider most relevant to their daily function. The study compared clinician item scores on BARS and SARA with patients’ self-reported perception of impairment and asked patients to rate the importance of hypothetical incremental changes in BARS gait and speech scores.
The analysis examined instances where clinician ratings either overestimated or underestimated the functional impairment patients reported experiencing. Overall, total clinician-overestimated points were similar across the two scales: BARS showed a mean total overestimation of 2.65 (± 2.80) points, while SARA showed a mean total overestimation of 2.78 (± 2.78) points. These values indicate comparable magnitudes of divergence between clinician scoring and patient-perceived impact across the two instruments in this sample.
When patients ranked scale items by importance for daily function, gait emerged as the most important item on both BARS and SARA. On BARS, the next-highest ranked item was oculomotor function, whereas on SARA the second-ranked item was stance. Appendicular measures such as heel-to-shin were consistently ranked lowest by patients in terms of importance to daily activities.
Appendicular measures, and heel-to-shin in particular, exhibited the highest degree of clinician overestimation relative to patient-reported impairment on both scales. The similar totals of overestimated points for BARS and SARA suggest that neither scale systematically outperformed the other in aligning clinician ratings with patient-reported meaningfulness in this cohort.
The study specifically queried patients about the perceived clinical meaningfulness of small incremental changes in BARS gait and speech item scores. For a 0.5-point change in BARS gait, 60% of patients rated the change as "very" or "extremely" important; this proportion rose to 83.3% for a 1-point gait change. For BARS speech, 46.6% of patients rated a 0.5-point change as very or extremely important, increasing to 70% for a 1-point change. These responses indicate that many patients consider sub-point and one-point increments on BARS items—especially gait and speech—to reflect perceptible and important differences in function.
In this sample of 30 patients with cerebellar ataxia, gait was the domain patients found most meaningful on both BARS and SARA. BARS oculomotor function and SARA stance ranked next in importance depending on the instrument. Appendicular items, including heel-to-shin, were perceived as less important for daily function and were the items most frequently overestimated by clinician ratings.
The authors interpret patient endorsement of 0.5-point and 1-point changes in BARS gait and speech as support for the utility of smaller scoring increments to provide greater granularity of assessment. They propose that these increments are relevant both in clinical practice and in the context of clinical trials because a substantial proportion of patients judged such changes to be clinically meaningful.
This report describes a small cohort (n=30) and is presented as a preprint; the authors note that the manuscript has not been peer reviewed. All presented data are contained within the manuscript. Competing interests were disclosed: one author reports multiple funding sources and consulting relationships, and holds patents related to ataxia rating scales and patient-reported outcome measures with royalties paid to Massachusetts General Hospital. The study’s funders are listed in the manuscript. Readers should interpret findings accordingly and recognize that results derive from a limited sample.
For clinicians and researchers using BARS or SARA, this study suggests prioritizing gait-related assessments when considering patient-centered impact, recognizing that appendicular items may have less perceived daily relevance. The patient endorsement of small increments in BARS gait and speech supports considering finer-grained scoring for these items when monitoring change over time or planning outcome measures for trials, while acknowledging the study’s sample size and preprint status.