ArticleProgress in rehabilitation medicine2025
Calculation of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Upper and Lower Limb Motor Assessment in Spinal Muscular Atrophy.
Article in Progress in rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- IMU-based workspace area as a promising complementary tool to assess upper limb function in Neuromuscular diseases: A one-year follow-up.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Article
- Risdiplam treatment in adults with spinal muscular atrophy: a single-center, real-world study.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- A detailed analysis of the effects of body parameters on motor function and fine motor skills measured at one-year intervals in patients with spinal muscular atrophy.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Physical function assessments in patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) are important indicators for assessing the effectiveness of treatment and changes over time in rehabilitation therapy. However, few reports exist on this indicator. This study calculated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for assessing motor function in the upper and lower limbs of individuals with SMA to estimate the degree of change within a functional score that is considered clinically meaningful. Methods: This cohort study relied on individual participant measurements. A distribution-based approach was used to calculate the MCID values, incorporating data from 26 patients with SMA for the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE), Revised Upper Limb Module (RULM), and grip and pinch strength. Results: The standard errors of measurement for all patients were: 58.38 m for 6MWT; 4.71 points for HFMSE; 3.25 points for RULM; 10.93 N and 9.86 N for right and left grip strength, respectively; 5.42 N and 4.73 N for right and left Palmar pinch; and 11.96 N and 8.66 N for right and left Key pinch. Significant correlations were observed between the physical function assessments. Conclusions: We calculated MCID values for physical function evaluations of SMA and, as a sub-analysis, determined the SMA type and ambulatory status. These findings are expected to contribute to future SMA treatment and rehabilitation and promote the selection of appropriate physical function assessments.
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.