Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38248295›Full record

ReviewBrain sciences2024

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

Biswamohan Mishra, Pachipala Sudheer, Ayush Agarwal, Nilima Nilima, Madakasira Vasantha Padma Srivastava, Venugopalan Y Vishnu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brain sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Surgery for spontaneous supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Quality of life after tranexamic acid in subarachnoid hemorrhage: post-hoc analysis of the ULTRA trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Biswamohan MishraDepartment of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7385-9121
Pachipala SudheerDepartment of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Ayush AgarwalDepartment of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Nilima NilimaDepartment of Biostatics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Madakasira Vasantha Padma SrivastavaDepartment of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.
Venugopalan Y VishnuDepartment of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3654-8137

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

clinical relevanceMCIDminimal clinically important changeminimal clinically important differencepatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)stroke

Identifiers

PMID38248295
PMCPMC10813687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.