Literature DB >> 35094664

The minimal clinically important difference of the motricity index score.

Chen Lin1, Yurany A Arevalo1, Richard L Harvey2, Shyam Prabhakaran3, Kimberly D Martin4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The Motricity Index (MI) can predict motor function after rehabilitation, but its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been established. The primary study aim was to estimate the MCID value of the MI arm score.
METHODS: Between 2017 and 2018, 173 participants hospitalized with confirmed ischemic stroke were recruited into an observational rehabilitation study. Participants with motor weakness as measured by the Fugl-Meyer upper-extremity (FM-UE) and MI with complete baseline and follow-up assessments at 3 months were included in this analysis. The longitudinal recovery of the MI arm score was anchored to having a poor outcome based on the FM-UE recovery (<9) longitudinally. Results reported include the area-under-curve (AUC), along with sensitivity, specificity, and optimal cut-points based on maximizing the Youden statistic.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients (median [IQR] age 70 [18] years; 48% male; 54% white) were included in the final analysis. Mean ± standard deviation outcome scores at 3-months were: MI arm: 83.19 ± 22.80; FM-UE: 53.04 ± 17.26. For the primary results, the MI arm score optimal MCID cutoff for observed recovery was 13 points with a sensitivity of 80% (95% Confidence Interval (CI)(67.6%, 92.4%)) and a specificity of 69.0% (95% CI (52.1, 85.8%)), and the AUC was 0.8082 (0.7007, 0.9157).
CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to report the MCID of the MI arm score, as anchored to the FM-UE recovery between acute evaluation and 3-months. The estimated optimal MCID of improvement in the MI arm score was 13 points.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Stroke rehabilitation; functional outcome measure; minimal clinically important difference; motricity index; stroke outcomes; upper limb

Year:  2022        PMID: 35094664      PMCID: PMC9338175          DOI: 10.1080/10749357.2022.2031532

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Top Stroke Rehabil        ISSN: 1074-9357            Impact factor:   2.177


  26 in total

1.  The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?

Authors:  R D Hays; J M Woolley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.981

2.  Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study.

Authors:  C Collin; D Wade
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 10.154

3.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference.

Authors:  R Jaeschke; J Singer; G H Guyatt
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

4.  Predicting Domain-Specific Health-Related Quality of Life Using Acute Infarct Volume.

Authors:  Chen Lin; Jungwha Lee; Neil Chatterjee; Carlos Corado; Timothy Carroll; Andrew Naidech; Shyam Prabhakaran
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Authors:  Alexis Wright; Joseph Hannon; Eric J Hegedus; Alicia Emerson Kavchak
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2012-08

6.  Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor function after stroke: standardized training procedure for clinical practice and clinical trials.

Authors:  Katherine J Sullivan; Julie K Tilson; Steven Y Cen; Dorian K Rose; Julie Hershberg; Anita Correa; Joann Gallichio; Molly McLeod; Craig Moore; Samuel S Wu; Pamela W Duncan
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke.

Authors:  Shyam Prabhakaran; Eric Zarahn; Claire Riley; Allison Speizer; Ji Y Chong; Ronald M Lazar; Randolph S Marshall; John W Krakauer
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 3.919

8.  Gait Measures at Admission to Inpatient Rehabilitation after Ischemic Stroke Predict 3-Month Quality of Life and Function.

Authors:  Chen Lin; Jungwha Lee; Christopher P Hurt; Ronald M Lazar; Yurany A Arevalo; Shyam Prabhakaran; Richard L Harvey
Journal:  PM R       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 2.298

Review 9.  Assessment of upper extremity impairment, function, and activity after stroke: foundations for clinical decision making.

Authors:  Catherine E Lang; Marghuretta D Bland; Ryan R Bailey; Sydney Y Schaefer; Rebecca L Birkenmeier
Journal:  J Hand Ther       Date:  2012-09-10       Impact factor: 1.908

10.  Minimal clinically important difference for the Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper extremity in convalescent stroke patients with moderate to severe hemiparesis.

Authors:  Shogo Hiragami; Yu Inoue; Kazuhiro Harada
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2019-11-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.