ArticleJournal of neurology2026
Estimating the minimal clinically important difference of functional outcomes in spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy.
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSpinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) is a slowly progressive X-linked neuromuscular disorder for which disease-modifying therapies are under investigation. SBMA Functional Rating Scale (SBMAFRS), its subscale (mSBMAFRS), and Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) are commonly used trial endpoints, but thresholds for clinically meaningful change remain undefined. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates are needed to interpret longitudinal outcomes and inform trial design.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed ambulatory, genetically confirmed SBMA patients. Eighty consecutive visit pairs from 44 patients included concurrent Global Rating of Change (GRC) assessments, and 47 visit pairs from 30 patients included concurrent 6MWT data. At follow-up, patients rated overall change since the previous visit on a 3‑level GRC (unchanged, slightly worse, much worse). Anchor-based MCIDs for worsening were derived from differences in change scores between GRC categories and compared with distribution-based estimates (0.5 baseline standard deviation). Sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo resampling assessed robustness.
resultsAnchor‑based MCID estimates for worsening were -1.13 and -1.46 points for the SBMAFRS total score, -0.53 and -1.09 points for the mSBMAFRS, and -34.5 and -32.4 m for the 6MWT. The mSBMAFRS showed the most consistent gradient across GRC categories and remained significant in sensitivity analyses. Distribution‑based MCIDs (2.30, 1.42 points and 61.85 m, respectively) were consistently larger than anchor‑based values. Age, disease duration, and CAG repeat length did not predict perceived worsening. DISCUSSION: These data provide the first patient‑anchored MCID estimates for SBMA outcome measures, support use of the mSBMAFRS, and offer thresholds for responder definitions and sample-size calculations in future SBMA trials.
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.