ABSTRACT
Valid and reliable measurements of muscle impairment are needed to assess therapeutic efficacy in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (MG). In 22 patients we compared the validity and interobserver reliability of two scoring methods commonly used as main endpoints in clinical trials, i.e., the Myasthenic Muscle Score (MMS) ranging from 0 to 100 (normal) and the Quantified Myasthenia Gravis Strength Score (QMGSS) ranging from 0 (normal) to 39. Each score is correlated more with functional scale and less with the patient's self-evaluation. Using intraclass correlation we found strong agreement between observers for both the MMS (r = 0.906) and the QMGSS (r = 0.905). The correlation between MMS and QGMSS was high (r = 0.87). The reliability of neither score depended on any specific item, since the removal of individual items did not significantly alter the intraclass correlation coefficient (ranging from 0.86 to 0.93).
