ArticleMovement disorders clinical practice2026
Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia.
Article in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2026. 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.
- Neurocognitive Therapeutic Exercise Integrated with Focal Mechanical Vibrations in a CANVAS Patient: A Case Report.Neurology international · 2026Article
- RFC1-related disorders: A case series of 4-aminopyridine and acetyl-DL-leucine treatment.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Successful fresh formulation CD19 CAR-T cell therapy for GAD65 antibody-mediated cerebellar ataxia. A Case Report.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Feasibility and preliminary signal of cerebellar intermittent theta burst stimulation for static balance in cerebellar ataxia: a pilot study.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) is the most used outcome measure in clinical trials for cerebellar ataxias. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), a parameter used to assess meaningful change, is not clearly defined.
objectiveTo help define MCID for SARA.
methodsSixty-two individuals with cerebellar ataxias participated in a home-exercise clinical trial. Participants had outcomes assessed [SARA, Timed Up and Go (TUG), Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), gait speed, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)] at 0-, 6-, 9-, and 12-months. Three methods were used to determine the MCID for SARA: anchor-based method, distribution-based method, and distribution-based mapping.
resultsThe MCID for SARA using anchor-based method was 1.75. The distribution-based method and distribution-based mapping identified a median MCID score of 1.23.
conclusionSynthesizing methods, we determined an MCID of 1.5 points. An accurate MCID is critical to ensure future treatments are clinically relevant.
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.