» Articles » PMID: 15345062

The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) Scale: a Methodological Review

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2004 Sep 4
PMID 15345062
Citations 134
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This paper compiles data from different sources to get a first comprehensive picture of psychometric and other methodological characteristics of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS) scale. The scale was designed and standardized as a self-administered scale to (a) to assess symptoms/complaints of aging women under different conditions, (b) to evaluate the severity of symptoms over time, and (c) to measure changes pre- and postmenopause replacement therapy. The scale became widespread used (available in 10 languages).

Method: A large multinational survey (9 countries in 4 continents) from 2001/ 2002 is the basis for in depth analyses on reliability and validity of the MRS. Additional small convenience samples were used to get first impressions about test-retest reliability. The data were centrally analyzed. Data from a postmarketing HRT study were used to estimate discriminative validity.

Results: Reliability measures (consistency and test-retest stability) were found to be good across countries, although the sample size for test-retest reliability was small.

Validity: The internal structure of the MRS across countries was astonishingly similar to conclude that the scale really measures the same phenomenon in symptomatic women. The sub-scores and total score correlations were high (0.7-0.9) but lower among the sub-scales (0.5-0.7). This however suggests that the subscales are not fully independent. Norm values from different populations were presented showing that a direct comparison between Europe and North America is possible, but caution recommended with comparisons of data from Latin America and Indonesia. But this will not affect intra-individual comparisons within clinical trials. The comparison with the Kupperman Index showed sufficiently good correlations, illustrating an adept criterion-oriented validity. The same is true for the comparison with the generic quality-of-life scale SF-36 where also a sufficiently close association has been shown.

Conclusion: The currently available methodological evidence points towards a high quality of the MRS scale to measure and to compare HRQoL of aging women in different regions and over time, it suggests a high reliability and high validity as far as the process of construct validation could be completed yet.

Citing Articles

Beneficial Effects of Pomegranate Extracts for Benign Gynecologic Disorders.

El Sayed S, Macri V, Singh B, Segars J, Islam M Reprod Sci. 2024; 32(3):600-617.

PMID: 39733205 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-024-01776-5.


Effects of physical activity on menopausal symptoms, psychosomatic factors and well-being among working women in England: A path analysis.

Asiamah N, Aladenola O, Cronin C, Sepp L, OCallaghan K Womens Health (Lond). 2024; 20:17455057241290370.

PMID: 39508619 PMC: 11544748. DOI: 10.1177/17455057241290370.


Estradiol and progesterone from pregnancy to postpartum: a longitudinal latent class analysis.

Dukic J, Johann A, Henninger M, Ehlert U Front Glob Womens Health. 2024; 5:1428494.

PMID: 39444825 PMC: 11496150. DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2024.1428494.


Menopausal symptoms and utilization of menopausal hormone therapy among women aged 40-60 years in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study.

Asfaw T, Gebreyohannes R, Tesfaye M BMC Womens Health. 2024; 24(1):515.

PMID: 39272098 PMC: 11401244. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03359-7.


[Study to improve the quality of life in perimenopausal women from the community pharmacy. Research protocol pilot study -m+45].

Prado Alvarez A, Mera Gallego I, Climent Catala M, Andraca Iturbe L, Caelles Franch N, Conde Babarro M Farm Comunitarios. 2024; 16(3):12-23.

PMID: 39188783 PMC: 11346263. DOI: 10.33620/FC.2173-9218.(2024).16.


References
1.
Potthoff P, Heinemann L, Schneider H, Rosemeier H, HAUSER G . [The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS II): methodological standardization in the German population]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2000; 122(5):280-6. View

2.
Schneider H, Rosemeier H, Schnitker J, Gerbsch S, Turck R . Application and factor analysis of the menopause rating scale [MRS] in a post-marketing surveillance study of Climen. Maturitas. 2001; 37(2):113-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0378-5122(00)00177-8. View

3.
Schneider H, Heinemann L, Rosemeier H, Potthoff P, Behre H . The Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): comparison with Kupperman index and quality-of-life scale SF-36. Climacteric. 2002; 3(1):50-8. DOI: 10.3109/13697130009167599. View

4.
Heinemann L, Potthoff P, Schneider H . International versions of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003; 1:28. PMC: 183844. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-28. View

5.
Heinemann K, Assmann A, Mohner S, Schneider H, Heinemann L . [Reliability of the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS): Investigation in the German population]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2002; 124(3):161-3. DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-32268. View