Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34939887›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of international medical research2021

Estimating the minimal clinically important difference for the Physical Component Summary of the Short Form 36 for patients with stroke.

Vivian Fu, Mark Weatherall, Harry McNaughton

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06884553 (Effects of Robot-assistED Rehabilitation Versus OccupatIonal Therapy on the Functional Recovery of the Upper Limb in PatiEnts with Chronic STroke), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06884553 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effects of Robot-assistED Rehabilitation Versus OccupatIonal Therapy on the Functional Recovery of the Upper Limb in PatiEnts with Chronic STroke: a Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of FlorenceRan2023 to 2025Enrolled72ConditionsChronic StrokeArmsRobotic therapy (Gloreha Sinfonia system), Occupational therapy, Control
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Augmented reality for stroke rehabilitation during COVID-19.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Vivian FuStroke/Rehabilitation Research, 194581Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Mark WeatherallDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Harry McNaughtonStroke/Rehabilitation Research, 194581Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3030-6062

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score's minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the Short Form 36 (SF-36) for people with stroke.

methodsWe conducted secondary analysis of data from a large randomized controlled trial (N = 400) in the post-hospital discharge phase of stroke rehabilitation with outcome measurement 6 and 12 months following stroke. Three methods were used for estimating the MCID: two anchor and one distribution. Method 1 compared SF-36 PCS scores at 12 months for responses to the SF-36's Perceived Health Change (PHC) question. Method 2 compared the change in PCS score between 6 and 12 months for responses to the PHC question. Method 3 used Cohen's method to estimate the MCID from the PCS score distribution.

resultsMethod 1: the mean PCS score increased by 3.0 units (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2-3.9) for each unit change in the PHC question. Method 2: the mean change in PCS score increased by 2.1 units (95% CI 1.4-2.8) for each unit change in the PHC question. Method 3: the MCID was estimated to be 1.8 units.

conclusionsOur estimate of the MCID for the PCS in patients with stroke was 1.8 to 3.0 units.

Indexed as

Minimal Clinically Important DifferenceStrokeDisability EvaluationHumansPhysical ExaminationQuality of LifeTreatment Outcomeminimal clinically important differenceoutcome measurephysical component summaryShort Form 36strokeStroke rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID34939887
PMCPMC8724999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.