Observational studyCerebellum (London, England)2026
Minimal Important Change of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) and the Modified Functional SARA (f-SARA) in Patient with Subacute Infratentorial Stroke: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study.
Observational study in Cerebellum (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This multicenter prospective longitudinal study aimed to estimate the minimal important change (MIC) for the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) and the modified functional SARA (f-SARA) in patients with subacute infratentorial stroke and ataxia undergoing rehabilitation. The study was conducted at inpatient rehabilitation units across five neurosurgical hospitals and included eighty patients with subacute infratentorial stroke. The SARA, f-SARA, and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) were assessed at baseline (within three months of onset) and at follow-up (two and four weeks after baseline). Additionally, the Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale was used by both participants and therapists to assess subjective improvement in ataxia prior to the 2- and 4-week follow-ups. Patients were divided into two groups based on improvements in BBS (≥ 7 points) or GRC (≥ 5 points). MIC was calculated using a receiver operating characteristic-based method when the correlation between SARA/f-SARA change scores and the external anchors (BBS or GRC) was ≥ 0.3. The results showed that MICs for SARA and f-SARA could not be established using patient- or therapist-rated GRC. When the BBS served as the external anchor, the MIC for SARA was − 2.75 points at 2 weeks and − 4.75 points at 4 weeks. For f-SARA, the MIC was − 1.5 points at 2 weeks and − 2.5 to − 3.25 points at 4 weeks. In conclusion, the MIC values calculated in this study provide a useful benchmark for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for ataxia and may guide clinical decision-making regarding intervention selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41714432What 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.