PURPOSE: To calculate the clinical significance of the SCIM III according to distribution-based approaches. METHOD: Retrospective review of the charts of 255 patients with registration of the total SCIM and of the four subscales. Clinical significance was calculated per several distribution-based approaches. The calculated clinical significance was compared with improvements by the patients to determine the percentage of patients who achieved significant improvement. RESULTS: An improvement of at least 4 points of the total SCIM is needed to obtain a small significant improvement and of 10 points to obtain a substantial improvement. Based on these results, the percentages of patients who achieved an improvement varied from 60% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide benchmarks for clinicians and researchers to interpret whether patients' change score on the SCIM III can be interpreted as true or clinically meaningful and to make clinical judgments about the patients' progress. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: An improvement of at least four points of the total SCIM is needed to obtain a small significant improvement and of 10 points to obtain a substantial improvement. The results provide benchmarks for clinicians and researchers to interpret whether patients' change score on the SCIM III can be interpreted as true or clinically meaningful and to make clinical judgments about the patients' progress.
PURPOSE: To calculate the clinical significance of the SCIM III according to distribution-based approaches. METHOD: Retrospective review of the charts of 255 patients with registration of the total SCIM and of the four subscales. Clinical significance was calculated per several distribution-based approaches. The calculated clinical significance was compared with improvements by the patients to determine the percentage of patients who achieved significant improvement. RESULTS: An improvement of at least 4 points of the total SCIM is needed to obtain a small significant improvement and of 10 points to obtain a substantial improvement. Based on these results, the percentages of patients who achieved an improvement varied from 60% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide benchmarks for clinicians and researchers to interpret whether patients' change score on the SCIM III can be interpreted as true or clinically meaningful and to make clinical judgments about the patients' progress. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: An improvement of at least four points of the total SCIM is needed to obtain a small significant improvement and of 10 points to obtain a substantial improvement. The results provide benchmarks for clinicians and researchers to interpret whether patients' change score on the SCIM III can be interpreted as true or clinically meaningful and to make clinical judgments about the patients' progress.
Authors: Peter H Gorman; William Scott; Leslie VanHiel; Keith E Tansey; W Mark Sweatman; Paula Richley Geigle Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Denise G Tate; Tracey Wheeler; Giulia I Lane; Martin Forchheimer; Kim D Anderson; Fin Biering-Sorensen; Anne P Cameron; Bruno Gallo Santacruz; Lyn B Jakeman; Michael J Kennelly; Steve Kirshblum; Andrei Krassioukov; Klaus Krogh; M J Mulcahey; Vanessa K Noonan; Gianna M Rodriguez; Ann M Spungen; David Tulsky; Marcel W Post Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: M J Mulcahey; Christina Calhoun Thielen; Cristina Sadowsky; Jennifer L Silvestri; Rebecca Martin; Lauren White; Julie A Cagney; Lawrence C Vogel; Jennifer Schottler; Loren Davidson; Ingrid Parry; Heather B Taylor; Kristine Higgins; Michelle L Feltz; Rebecca Sinko; Jackie Bultman; Jenny Mazurkiewicz; John Gaughan Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Paula Valerie Ter Wengel; Marcel W M Post; Enrico Martin; Janneke Stolwijk-Swuste; Allard Jan Frederik Hosman; Said Sadiqi; William Peter Vandertop; Fetullah Cumhur Öner Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.772