Literature DB >> 28084060

What do spinal cord injury patients think of their improvement? A study of the minimal clinically important difference of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure III.

Viviana Corallo1,2, Monica Torre3,4, Giovanna Ferrara5, Federica Guerra5, Gabriella Nicosia2, Ersilia Romanelli6, Angela Lopopolo6, Maria P Onesta2, Pietro Fiore6, Roberta Falcone7, Jacopo Bonavita5, Marco Molinari3,4, Giorgio Scivoletto8,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III) is a scale of independence in the activities of daily life, specifically designed for spinal cord injury subjects. AIM: The aim of this study was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the SCIM III according to distribution and anchor based approach.
DESIGN: Prospective study.
SETTING: Four Spinal Cord Units in Italy. POPULATION: Patients with acute/subacute spinal cord injury/lesion.
METHODS: The scores of the total SCIM and of the four subscale was recorded at admission and discharge. Clinical significance was calculated according to anchor based methodology using a global rating of change questionnaire. The accuracy of MCID values in predicting a judgment of small improvement by the patients has been assessed by means of the area under the receiving operating curves (aROC).
RESULTS: Total SCIM MCID values varied from 12 for patients with complete tetraplegia to 45.3 for those with incomplete thoracic lesions. The MCID of self-care varied from 3.3 to 8.5 and from 10 to 18 for respiration and sphincter management, depending on the level and severity of the lesion. With regard to mobility (room and toilet), the MCID varied from 1 to 3 and from 2.5 to 7.26 for mobility (indoors and outdoors). The aROC was between good and excellent for all these values.
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. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: Our data could be useful for both clinicians and researchers. At the beginning of rehabilitation clinicians may have an idea of the minimal improvement of the patient (based on his neurological status) that could have an impact on patient's life. At the end of rehabilitation process, it is possible to control if the patient achieved an improvement that is true and significant. Researchers could also use these criteria to evaluate the clinical significance of an intervention by calculating the number of subjects in the treatment and control groups (or in two different treatment groups) who achieved a change calculated as the natural recovery plus the MCID.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28084060     DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04240-X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Phys Rehabil Med        ISSN: 1973-9087            Impact factor:   2.874


  7 in total

1.  Comparison of Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Capabilities of Upper Extremity Test (CUE-T) and the Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension (GRASSP).

Authors:  Ralph J Marino; Rebecca Sinko; Anne Bryden; Deborah Backus; David Chen; Gregory A Nemunaitis; Benjamin E Leiby
Journal:  Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil       Date:  2018

2.  Functional independence of persons with long-standing motor complete spinal cord injury in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Rutger Osterthun; Tjitske A Tjalma; Dorien C M Spijkerman; Willemijn X M Faber; Floris W A van Asbeck; Jacinthe J E Adriaansen; Marcel W M Post
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Ambulation and physical function after eccentric resistance training in adults with incomplete spinal cord injury: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Whitley J Stone; Sandra L Stevens; Dana K Fuller; Jennifer L Caputo
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 1.985

4.  Despite limitations in content range, the SCIM-III is reproducible and a valid indicator of physical function in youths with spinal cord injury and dysfunction.

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

5.  Functional independence in the Finnish spinal cord injury population.

Authors:  Kirsi Majamäki; Susanna Tallqvist; Aki Vainionpää; Eerika Koskinen; Anna-Maija Kauppila; Paula Bergman; Heidi Anttila; Harri Hämäläinen; Anni Täckman; Mauri Kallinen; Jari Arokoski; Sinikka Hiekkala
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 2.473

6.  Spinal cord stimulation and rehabilitation in an individual with chronic complete L1 paraplegia due to a conus medullaris injury: motor and functional outcomes at 18 months.

Authors:  Max O Krucoff; Robert Gramer; Dana Lott; Emily Kale; Amol P Yadav; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr; Saurabh R Sinha; Shivanand P Lad
Journal:  Spinal Cord Ser Cases       Date:  2020-10-16

7.  The Impact of an Evidence-Informed Spinal Cord Injury Activities of Daily Living Education Manual (SADL-eM): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Moussa Abu Mostafa; Nicola Ann Plastow; Maggi Savin-Baden; Birhanu Ayele
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2022-07-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.