{"title":"Verification of the minimal clinically important difference of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test in patients with subacute spinal cord injury.","authors":"Kazumasa Jimbo, Kazuhiro Miyata, Hiroshi Yuine, Kousuke Takahama, Tomohiro Yoshimura, Honoka Shiba, Taichi Yasumori, Naohisa Kikuchi, Hideki Shiraishi","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2023.2273586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The number of patients with cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) is increasing, and the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test (CUE-T) is recommended for introduction in clinical trials. We calculated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the CUE-T using an adjustment model with an interval of 1 month.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a prospective study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>This study was conducted with participants from the Chiba Rehabilitation Center in Japan.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>The participants were patients with subacute CSCI.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>The CUE-T and spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) III were performed twice within an interval of 1 month.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The MCID was calculated using an adjustment model based on logistic regression analysis. The participants were classified into an improvement group and a non-improvement group based on the amount of change in the two evaluations using the 10-point SCIM III MCID as an anchor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 52 participants (56.8 ± 13.5 years old, 45 men/7 women) with complete or incomplete CSCI: 18 in the improvement group and 34 in the non-improvement group. A significant regression equation was obtained when calculating the MCID, and the total, hand, and side scores were 7.7, 2.0, and 3.7 points, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The calculated MCID of the CUE-T in this study was 7.7 points. The results of this study provide useful criteria for implementation in clinical trials. Future studies should use patient-reported outcomes, a more recommended anchor, and calculate the MCID using methods such as the patient's condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":50044,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"613-620"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2023.2273586","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context: The number of patients with cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) is increasing, and the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test (CUE-T) is recommended for introduction in clinical trials. We calculated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the CUE-T using an adjustment model with an interval of 1 month.
Design: This was a prospective study.
Setting: This study was conducted with participants from the Chiba Rehabilitation Center in Japan.
Participants: The participants were patients with subacute CSCI.
Interventions: The CUE-T and spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) III were performed twice within an interval of 1 month.
Outcome measures: The MCID was calculated using an adjustment model based on logistic regression analysis. The participants were classified into an improvement group and a non-improvement group based on the amount of change in the two evaluations using the 10-point SCIM III MCID as an anchor.
Results: There were 52 participants (56.8 ± 13.5 years old, 45 men/7 women) with complete or incomplete CSCI: 18 in the improvement group and 34 in the non-improvement group. A significant regression equation was obtained when calculating the MCID, and the total, hand, and side scores were 7.7, 2.0, and 3.7 points, respectively.
Conclusion: The calculated MCID of the CUE-T in this study was 7.7 points. The results of this study provide useful criteria for implementation in clinical trials. Future studies should use patient-reported outcomes, a more recommended anchor, and calculate the MCID using methods such as the patient's condition.
背景:颈脊髓损伤(CSCI)患者的数量正在增加,建议在临床试验中引入上肢能力测试(CUE-T)。我们使用间隔1个月的调整模型计算了CUE-T的最小临床重要差异(MCID)。设计:这是一项前瞻性研究。背景:本研究由日本千叶康复中心的参与者进行。参与者:参与者为亚急性CSCI患者。干预措施:在1个月内进行两次CUE-T和脊髓独立性测量(SCIM)III。结果测量:MCID使用基于逻辑回归分析的调整模型进行计算。基于使用10分SCIM III MCID作为锚的两次评估中的变化量,将参与者分为改善组和非改善组。结果:共有52名参与者(56.8 ± 13.5岁,45男/7女):改善组18例,非改善组34例。在计算MCID时获得了显著的回归方程,总分、手部和侧部得分分别为7.7分、2.0分和3.7分。结论:本研究计算的CUE-T的MCID为7.7分。这项研究的结果为临床试验的实施提供了有用的标准。未来的研究应使用患者报告的结果,更推荐的锚,并使用患者状况等方法计算MCID。
期刊介绍:
For more than three decades, The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine has reflected the evolution of the field of spinal cord medicine. From its inception as a newsletter for physicians striving to provide the best of care, JSCM has matured into an international journal that serves professionals from all disciplines—medicine, nursing, therapy, engineering, psychology and social work.