NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAlthough an increasing number of trials are reported on the treatment of generalized or segmental isolated dystonia, the minimal clinically important difference thresholds for the most frequently reported outcome measures are still undetermined.ObjectivesTo estimate the minimal clinically important difference for the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey in generalized or segmental dystonia.MethodsA total of 898 paired examinations of 198 consecutive patients, aged >18 years, with idiopathic and inherited (torsin family 1 member A positive) segmental and generalized isolated dystonia were analyzed. To calculate the minimal clinically important difference thresholds, both anchor- and distribution-based methods were used simultaneously.ResultsAny improvement >16.6% or worsening larger than 21.5% on the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale indicates a minimal, yet clinically relevant, change. Threshold values for the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Disability Scale were 0.5 points for both decline and improvement. Cut-off scores for the Physical Component Summary, the Mental Component Summary, and the Global (Total or Overall) Score of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey were 5.5 and 5.5, 6.5 and 7.5, and 7.5 and 8.5 points for clinically meaningful improvement and deterioration, respectively.ConclusionsThe minimal clinically important difference represents the smallest change in an outcome measure that is meaningful to patients. Our estimates for the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey may allow more reliable judgment of the clinical relevance of different treatments for segmental and generalized isolated dystonia. © 2020 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.