Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

Overview

Journal Brain Sci

Publisher MDPI

Date 2024 Jan 22

PMID 38248295

Authors

Biswamohan Mishra

Pachipala Sudheer

Ayush Agarwal

Nilima Nilima

Madakasira Vasantha Padma Srivastava

Venugopalan Y Vishnu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

There is a growing awareness of the significance of using minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in stroke research. An MCID is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. This review is the first to provide a comprehensive summary of various scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in stroke research and their MCID values reported in the literature, including a concise overview of the concept of and methods for determining MCIDs in stroke research. Despite the controversies and limitations surrounding the estimation of MCIDs, their importance in modern clinical trials cannot be overstated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are recommended for estimating MCIDs, with patient self-evaluation being a crucial component in capturing the patient's perspective on their health. A combination of methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of treatment effects, and incorporating the patient's perspective can enhance the care of stroke patients.

Citing Articles

Examination of effect and responder to real-time auditory feedback during overground gait for stroke: a randomized cross-over study.

Araki S, Miyazaki T, Shibasaki J, Okumura K, Ishii A, Shimose D Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):8519.

PMID: 40074803 PMC: 11904209. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-93262-4.

Feasibility of Smartphone-Based Exercise Training Integrated with Functional Electrical Stimulation After Stroke (SETS): A Preliminary Study.

Purohit R, Appelgren-Gonzalez J, Varas-Diaz G, Wang S, Hosiasson M, Covarrubias-Escudero F Sensors (Basel). 2025; 25(4).

PMID: 40006483 PMC: 11861842. DOI: 10.3390/s25041254.

Bloodletting at the ear apex for acute stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kim M, Han C Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(49):e40694.

PMID: 39654224 PMC: 11630970. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000040694.

Improvements in Walking During Subacute Stroke Rehabilitation Translate to Physical Activity at the Chronic Stage: A Sub-Analysis From the Phys Stroke Trial.

Rackoll T, Hinrichs T, Neumann K, Wolfarth B, Nave A Brain Neurorehabil. 2024; 17(3):e17.

PMID: 39649709 PMC: 11621667. DOI: 10.12786/bn.2024.17.e17.

Robot-mediated impairment-oriented and task-specific training on upper limb post stroke: feasibility and preliminary effects on physical function and quality of life.

Tay S, Zhang F, Visperas C, Koh X, Lau B, Neo J Front Neurol. 2024; 15:1415773.

PMID: 39463787 PMC: 11505121. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1415773.

References

Morris D, Uswatte G, Crago J, Cook 3rd E, Taub E . The reliability of the wolf motor function test for assessing upper extremity function after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001; 82(6):750-5. DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2001.23183. View

Harrison J, McArthur K, Quinn T . Assessment scales in stroke: clinimetric and clinical considerations. Clin Interv Aging. 2013; 8:201-11. PMC: 3578502. DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S32405. View

van der Lee J, Beckerman H, Knol D, de Vet H, Bouter L . Clinimetric properties of the motor activity log for the assessment of arm use in hemiparetic patients. Stroke. 2004; 35(6):1410-4. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000126900.24964.7e. View

Sandin K, Smith B . The measure of balance in sitting in stroke rehabilitation prognosis. Stroke. 1990; 21(1):82-6. DOI: 10.1161/01.str.21.1.82. View

Wang T, Lin K, Wu C, Chung C, Pei Y, Teng Y . Validity, responsiveness, and clinically important difference of the ABILHAND questionnaire in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(7):1086-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.020. View

Banks J, Marotta C . Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007; 38(3):1091-6. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000258355.23810.c6. View

Fisher M, Albers G, Donnan G, Furlan A, Grotta J, Kidwell C . Enhancing the development and approval of acute stroke therapies: Stroke Therapy Academic Industry roundtable. Stroke. 2005; 36(8):1808-13. DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000173403.60553.27. View

Jones S, Kon S, Canavan J, Patel M, Clark A, M Nolan C . The five-repetition sit-to-stand test as a functional outcome measure in COPD. Thorax. 2013; 68(11):1015-20. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2013-203576. View

Wagner J, Lang C, Sahrmann S, Edwards D, Dromerick A . Sensorimotor impairments and reaching performance in subjects with poststroke hemiparesis during the first few months of recovery. Phys Ther. 2007; 87(6):751-65. DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20060135. View

10.

Fulk G, Ludwig M, Dunning K, Golden S, Boyne P, West T . Estimating clinically important change in gait speed in people with stroke undergoing outpatient rehabilitation. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011; 35(2):82-9. DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0b013e318218e2f2. View

11.

Taylor-Rowan M, Wilson A, Dawson J, Quinn T . Functional Assessment for Acute Stroke Trials: Properties, Analysis, and Application. Front Neurol. 2018; 9:191. PMC: 5879151. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00191. View

12.

Bertrand A, Mercier C, Bourbonnais D, Desrosiers J, Gravel D . Reliability of maximal static strength measurements of the arms in subjects with hemiparesis. Clin Rehabil. 2007; 21(3):248-57. DOI: 10.1177/0269215506070792. View

13.

Chuang-Stein C, Kirby S, Hirsch I, Atkinson G . The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial. Pharm Stat. 2010; 10(3):250-6. DOI: 10.1002/pst.459. View

14.

Hsieh Y, Wang C, Wu S, Chen P, Sheu C, Hsieh C . Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2007; 21(3):233-8. DOI: 10.1177/1545968306294729. View

15.

Beaton D, Boers M, Wells G . Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002; 14(2):109-14. DOI: 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00006. View

16.

Gladstone D, Danells C, Black S . The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002; 16(3):232-40. DOI: 10.1177/154596802401105171. View

17.

MAHONEY F, BARTHEL D . FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965; 14:61-5. View

18.

Moore J, Potter K, Blankshain K, Kaplan S, ODwyer L, Sullivan J . A Core Set of Outcome Measures for Adults With Neurologic Conditions Undergoing Rehabilitation: A CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINE. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018; 42(3):174-220. PMC: 6023606. DOI: 10.1097/NPT.0000000000000229. View

19.

Stratford P, Binkley J, Riddle D, Guyatt G . Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris Back Pain Questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther. 1998; 78(11):1186-96. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/78.11.1186. View

20.

Beninato M, Gill-Body K, Salles S, Stark P, Black-Schaffer R, Stein J . Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87(1):32-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.08.130. View