ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2025
Determining clinically meaningful change: minimal clinically important difference for common depression scales in older adults with parkinson's disease.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 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.
- Are exercise benefits in older adults clinically meaningful?: An ancillary and follow-up analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.GeroScience · 2026Article
- A Model for Implementing Psychotherapy for Individuals With Cognitive Impairments.Clinical gerontologist · 2026Article
- Change ofFrontiers in psychology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) is a crucial measure in clinical research, reflecting the smallest change in symptoms that patients perceive as beneficial. While MCID values have been established for various symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD), they remain underexplored in the context of depression.
objectiveThis study aims to determine MCID values for three commonly used depression scales in PD: The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale (HADS-D), and the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15).
methodsA total of 112 individuals with PD and depression (mean age = 70.91 ± 3.12 years) participated in a 10-week cognitive behavioral therapy program. The MCID values were estimated using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods. The Global Rating of Change (GRoC) scale was used as an anchor to assess perceived changes in depressive symptoms.
resultsMCID values were refined using the mean difference approach, resulting in the following: -5.79 points for the BDI-II, -3.52 points for the HADS-D, and - 3.05 points for the GDS-15, all with statistical significance (p < 0.001). Using Youden's index, the optimal MCID cut-off values were ≤ -3 points for BDI-II, ≤ -2 points for HADS-D, and ≤ -2 points for GDS-15, with high sensitivity and specificity for each. The MCID values derived from the distribution-based method for the BDI-II, HADS-D, and GDS-15 were 5.57-3.55, 1.11-3.07, and 0.96-2.66 points, respectively.
conclusionsThis study establishes MCID thresholds for commonly used depression scales in PD. These benchmarks are essential for improving clinical decision-making and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in both clinical and research settings.
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.