Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC)

This article or area is currently under construction and may only be partially complete. Please come back soon to see the finished work! (2/03/2024)
Original Editor - User Name
Top Contributors - Memoona Awan and Kim Jackson

Purpose[edit | edit source]

The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) designed by "National MS Society's Clinical Outcome Assessment Task" and is a standardized tool used to quantify degree of disability in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS)[1]. Limitations in EDSS leads to development of MSFC in the early 1990's, to improve clinical assessment of patients with multiple sclerosis[2][3]. The traditional scales such as EDSS scale are inadequate in measuring some key aspects of MS for example cognitive function and have psychometric limitations as well[1].

Technique[edit | edit source]

MSFC covers three functional domains[3]:

  1. Ambulatory Function
  2. Hand Function
  3. Cognitive function



The results of the tests that assess these domains are depicted in an interval scale (seconds or number of correct responses) and can be converted to a Z score that is based on values of a reference population [42]. An overall score can be calculated by averaging the Z score of the subtests.

Evidence[edit | edit source]

Provide the evidence for this technique here

Resources[edit | edit source]

Guidebook

Scoring guideline

References[edit | edit source]

  1. 1.0 1.1 JS, RA, GR, SC. F Rudick, Cutter, Reingold. The Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC): an integrated approach to MS clinical outcome assessment. Multiple Sclerosis Journal [Internet]. 1999 [cited 2024 Mar 1];5(4):244–250.
  2. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, Cookfair DL, Fischer JS, Petkau J, . Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain [Internet]. 1999 [cited 2024 Mar 1];122(5):871–882.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Van Munster, C. E., & Uitdehaag, B. M. Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials for Multiple Sclerosis. CNS drugs. 2017;31(3):217–236.