ArticleScientific reports2026
Minimal clinically important difference for cognitive scales in people with Parkinson's disease with cognitive impairment.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness and safety of theta burst stimulation for Parkinson's disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized parallel-group controlled trials.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Pooled it
- A neuroimmune-enriched multibiofluid proteomic index associated with cognitive-motor progression in early Parkinson's disease: a longitudinal PPMI cohort study.Frontiers in immunology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cognitive impairment (CI) is a significant non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease (PD), necessitating effective assessment tools to evaluate treatment efficacy. Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) thresholds provide critical benchmarks for interpreting cognitive intervention outcomes. This study establishes MCID values for PD Cognitive Rating Scale (PD-CRS), Scales for Outcomes in PD-Cognition (SCOPA-COG), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in PD-CI. A total of 110 patients with PD-CI were recruited; 105 (mean age 71.96 ± 2.40 years) completed the 12-week Dual-Task Training (DTT) program and were included in the final analyses. Cognitive function was assessed using PD-CRS, SCOPA-COG, and MoCA at baseline and post-intervention, with the Global Rating of Change (GRoC) questionnaire serving as an anchor. The MCID value was determined using anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was employed to evaluate these thresholds. Significant improvements were observed across all cognitive measures post-intervention. The anchor-based MCID values were 7.70 points for PD-CRS, 3.11 points for SCOPA-COG, and 2.05 points for MoCA, respectively. Additionally, ROC curve analysis further determined that MCID cut-off points were > 3 points for the PD-CRS, > 2 points for the SCOPA-COG, and > 1 point for the MoCA. The distribution-based MCID values ranged from 1.48 to 4.10 points for PD-CRS, 1.37 to 5.95 points for SCOPA-COG, and 0.54 to 3.71 points for MoCA. This study established MCID thresholds for PD-CRS, SCOPA-COG, and MoCA in PD-CI, providing essential tools for clinicians and researchers to assess clinically meaningful changes after cognitive intervention.
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.