ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Raw, centile and individualised minimal clinically important differences for the MMN-Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale
Article in Journal of neurology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal clinical application of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the MMN-Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale
methodsWe retrospectively studied subjects with MMN from 2 UK neuropathy centres. Raw and centile MMN-RODS scores were collected, at initial, two intermediate, and latest assessment, and distribution-based MCIDs determined at studied time-points. The sensitivities of raw, centile and individualised MCIDs, were compared.
resultsWe included 32 consecutive subjects with MMN on individualised immunoglobulin dosing regimens. First intermediate, second intermediate, and latest assessments were performed at a median of 17.0, 54.1 and 74.6 months from onset, respectively. Progressive amelioration of mean raw MMN-RODS score occurred between initial and latest assessment. The distribution-based raw MMN-RODS MCID was of 3, 4 and 5, and the distribution-based centile MMN-RODS MCID was of 6, 7 and 7, at first intermediate, second intermediate and latest assessment, respectively. At first intermediate assessment, raw and individualised MCIDs were equally sensitive, and both more sensitive than centile MCID (McNemar's Test: p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Raw MCID, centile MCID and individualised MCID, all had equivalent sensitivity at the second intermediate and latest assessment. Neither initial MMN-RODS score, nor amplitude of treatment-induced changes in early disease stages, independently predicted total improvement amplitude or final outcome.
conclusionsMMN-RODS MCID cut-offs may require adaption to assessment timing. In earlier stages, raw/individualised MCID may be more sensitive than centile MCID, whereas all three methods may subsequently be equivalent. Initial disability and early treatment response do not predict achievable total improvement amplitude nor final outcome.
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.