Krisztina Horváth1, Zsuzsanna Aschermann2, Péter Ács3, Gabriella Deli2, József Janszky4, Sámuel Komoly3, Éva Balázs3, Katalin Takács3, Kázmér Karádi5, Norbert Kovács6. 1. Doctoral School of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 2. Doctoral School of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary; Department of Neurology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 3. Department of Neurology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary; MTA-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, Pécs, Hungary. 5. Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Pécs, Hungary. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary; MTA-PTE Clinical Neuroscience MR Research Group, Pécs, Hungary. Electronic address: kovacsnorbert06@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies increasingly utilize the Movement Disorders Society Sponsored Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). However, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been fully established for MDS-UPDRS yet. OBJECTIVE: To assess the MCID thresholds for MDS-UPDRS Motor Examination (Part III). METHODS: 728 paired investigations of 260 patients were included. At each visit both MDS-UPDRS and Clinician-reported Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scales were assessed. MDS-UPDRS Motor Examination (ME) score changes associated with CGI-I score 4 (no change) were compared with MDS-UPDRS ME score changes associated with CGI-I score 3 (minimal improvement) and CGI-I score 5 (minimal worsening). Both anchor- and distribution-based techniques were utilized to determine the magnitude of MCID. RESULTS: The MCID estimates for MDS-UPDRS ME were asymmetric: -3.25 points for detecting minimal, but clinically pertinent, improvement and 4.63 points for observing minimal, but clinically pertinent, worsening. CONCLUSIONS: MCID is the smallest change of scores that are clinically meaningful to patients. These MCID estimates may allow the judgement of a numeric change in MDS-UPDRS ME on its clinical importance.
BACKGROUND: Recent studies increasingly utilize the Movement Disorders Society Sponsored Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). However, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been fully established for MDS-UPDRS yet. OBJECTIVE: To assess the MCID thresholds for MDS-UPDRS Motor Examination (Part III). METHODS: 728 paired investigations of 260 patients were included. At each visit both MDS-UPDRS and Clinician-reported Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) scales were assessed. MDS-UPDRS Motor Examination (ME) score changes associated with CGI-I score 4 (no change) were compared with MDS-UPDRS ME score changes associated with CGI-I score 3 (minimal improvement) and CGI-I score 5 (minimal worsening). Both anchor- and distribution-based techniques were utilized to determine the magnitude of MCID. RESULTS: The MCID estimates for MDS-UPDRS ME were asymmetric: -3.25 points for detecting minimal, but clinically pertinent, improvement and 4.63 points for observing minimal, but clinically pertinent, worsening. CONCLUSIONS: MCID is the smallest change of scores that are clinically meaningful to patients. These MCID estimates may allow the judgement of a numeric change in MDS-UPDRS ME on its clinical importance.
Authors: Caroline A Mulvaney; Gonçalo S Duarte; Joel Handley; David Jw Evans; Suresh Menon; Richard Wyse; Hedley Ca Emsley Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-07-23
Authors: Margaret Schenkman; Charity G Moore; Wendy M Kohrt; Deborah A Hall; Anthony Delitto; Cynthia L Comella; Deborah A Josbeno; Cory L Christiansen; Brian D Berman; Benzi M Kluger; Edward L Melanson; Samay Jain; Julie A Robichaud; Cynthia Poon; Daniel M Corcos Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Neil A Kelly; Kelley G Hammond; C Scott Bickel; Samuel T Windham; S Craig Tuggle; Marcas M Bamman Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-12-21
Authors: R Song; W Grabowska; M Park; K Osypiuk; G P Vergara-Diaz; P Bonato; J M Hausdorff; M Fox; L R Sudarsky; E Macklin; P M Wayne Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 4.891
Authors: Joaquin A Vizcarra; Miguel Situ-Kcomt; Carlo Alberto Artusi; Andrew P Duker; Leonardo Lopiano; Michael S Okun; Alberto J Espay; Aristide Merola Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: D Luke Fischer; Peggy Auinger; John L Goudreau; Allyson Cole-Strauss; Karl Kieburtz; Jordan J Elm; Mallory L Hacker; P David Charles; Jack W Lipton; Barbara A Pickut; Caryl E Sortwell Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Ronald B Postuma; Julius Anang; Amelie Pelletier; Lawrence Joseph; Mariana Moscovich; David Grimes; Sarah Furtado; Renato P Munhoz; Silke Appel-Cresswell; Adriana Moro; Andrew Borys; Douglas Hobson; Anthony E Lang Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Matej Skorvanek; Pablo Martinez-Martin; Norbert Kovacs; Mayela Rodriguez-Violante; Jean-Christophe Corvol; Pille Taba; Klaus Seppi; Oleg Levin; Anette Schrag; Thomas Foltynie; Mario Alvarez-Sanchez; Tomoko Arakaki; Zsuzsanna Aschermann; Iciar Aviles-Olmos; Eve Benchetrit; Charline Benoit; Alberto Bergareche-Yarza; Amin Cervantes-Arriaga; Anabel Chade; Florence Cormier; Veronika Datieva; David A Gallagher; Nelida Garretto; Zuzana Gdovinova; Oscar Gershanik; Milan Grofik; Vladimir Han; Jing Huang; Liis Kadastik-Eerme; Monica M Kurtis; Graziella Mangone; Juan Carlos Martinez-Castrillo; Amelia Mendoza-Rodriguez; Michal Minar; Henry P Moore; Mari Muldmaa; Christoph Mueller; Bernadette Pinter; Werner Poewe; Karin Rallmann; Eva Reiter; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez; Carlos Singer; Barbara C Tilley; Peter Valkovic; Christopher G Goetz; Glenn T Stebbins Journal: Mov Disord Clin Pract Date: 2017-03-11