ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2025
Verification of the minimal clinically important difference of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test in patients with subacute spinal cord injury.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observational
- Gamified electromyographic biofeedback for people with tetraplegia from SCI is enjoyable, results in high-dosage therapy, increases muscle electrical activity, and may improve arm function, a pilot study.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Verification of item difficulty in the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test using Rasch analysis for individuals with cervical spinal cord injury.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextThe 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.
designThis was a prospective study.
settingThis study was conducted with participants from the Chiba Rehabilitation Center in Japan.
participantsThe participants were patients with subacute CSCI.
interventionsThe 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.
resultsThere 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.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.