Abstract
Study design:
This is a review article.
Objectives:
This study discusses the following: (1) concepts and constraints for the determination of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), (2) the contrasts between MCID and minimal detectable difference (MDD), (3) MCID within the different domains of International Classification of Functioning, disability and health, (4) the roles of clinical investigators and clinical participants in defining MCID and (5) the implementation of MCID in acute versus chronic spinal cord injury (SCI) studies.
Methods:
The methods include narrative reviews of SCI outcomes, a 2-day meeting of the authors and statistical methods of analysis representing MDD.
Results:
The data from SCI study outcomes are dependent on many elements, including the following: the level and severity of SCI, the heterogeneity within each study cohort, the therapeutic target, the nature of the therapy, any confounding influences or comorbidities, the assessment times relative to the date of injury, the outcome measurement instrument and the clinical end-point threshold used to determine a treatment effect. Even if statistically significant differences can be established, this finding does not guarantee that the experimental therapeutic provides a person living with SCI an improved capacity for functional independence and/or an increased quality of life. The MDD statistical concept describes the smallest real change in the specified outcome, beyond measurement error, and it should not be confused with the minimum threshold for demonstrating a clinical benefit or MCID. Unfortunately, MCID and MDD are not uncomplicated estimations; nevertheless, any MCID should exceed the expected MDD plus any probable spontaneous recovery.
Conclusion:
Estimation of an MCID for SCI remains elusive. In the interim, if the target of a therapeutic is the injured spinal cord, it is most desirable that any improvement in neurological status be correlated with a functional (meaningful) benefit.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Steeves JD, Kramer JK, Fawcett JW, Cragg J, Lammertse DP, Blight AR et al. Extent of spontaneous motor recovery after traumatic cervical sensorimotor complete spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2011; 49: 257–265.
Steeves JD, Lammertse DP, Kramer JL, Kleitman N, Kalsi-Ryan S, Jones L et al. Outcome measures for acute/subacute cervical sensorimotor complete (AIS-A) spinal cord injury during a phase 2 clinical trial. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2012; 18: 1–14.
Kramer JL, Lammertse DP, Schubert M, Curt A, Steeves JD . Relationship between motor recovery and independence after sensorimotor complete cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2012; 26: 1064–1071.
Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, Molinari M . The spinal cord independence measure: how much change is clinically significant for spinal cord injury subjects. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35: 1808–1813.
Tanadini LG, Steeves JD, Hothorn T, Abel R, Maier D, Schubert M et al. Identifying homogeneous subgroups in neurological disorders: unbiased recursive partitioning in cervical complete spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2014; 28: 507–515.
Kwon BK, Okon E, Hillyer J, Mann C, Baptiste D, Weaver LC et al. A systematic review of non-invasive pharmacologic neuroprotective treatments for acute spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 2011; 28: 1545–1588.
Mothe AJ, Tator CH . Review of tranplantation of neural stem/progenitor cells for spinal cord injury. Int J Dev Neurosci 2013; 31: 701–713.
Varma AK, Das A, Wallace G, Barry J, Vertegel AA, Ray SK et al. Spinal cord injury: a review of current therapy, future treatments and basic science frontiers. Neurochem Res 2013; 38: 895–905.
Fawcett JW, Curt A, Steeves JD, Coleman WP, Tuszynski MH, Lammertse D et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury asdeveloped by the ICCP panel: spontaneous recovery after spinal cord injury and statistical power needed for therapeutic clinical trials. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 190–205.
Steeves JD, Lammertse D, Curt A, Fawcett JW, Tuszynski MH, Ditunno JF et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury (SCI) as developed by the ICCP panel: clinical trial outcome measures. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 206–211.
Itzkovich M, Gelernter F, Catz A . The spinal cord independence measure (SCIM) version III: reliability and validity in a multi-center international study. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 1926–1933.
Alexander MS, Anderson KD, Biering-Sorenson F, Blight AR, Brannon R, Bryce TN et al. Outcome measures in spinal cord injury: recent assessments and recommendations for future directions. Spinal Cord 2009; 47: 582–591.
Hill MR, Noonan VK, Sakakibara BM, Miller WC SCIRE Research Team. Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord 2010; 48: 438–450.
Furlan JC, Noonan V, Fehlings MG . Assessment of disability in patients with acute tramatic spinal cord injury: a systematic review of the literature. J Neurotrauma 2011; 28: 1413–1430.
Kirshblum SC, Waring W, Biering-Sorensen F, Burns SP, Johansen M, Schmidt-Read M et al. Reference for the 2011 revision of the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2011 34: 547–554.
Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH . Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407–415.
Tuszynski MH, Steeves JD, Fawcett JW, Lammertse D, Kalichman M, Rask C et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury as developed by the ICCP Panel: clinical trial inclusion/exclusion criteria and ethics. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 222–231.
Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371–383.
Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC . Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine 2007; 7: 541–546.
Gatchel RJ, Lurie JD, Mayer TG . Minimal clinically important difference. Spine J 2010; 35: 1739–1743.
Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL . Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 2001; 10: 571–578.
Schuck P, Zwingmann C . The “smallest real difference” as a measure of sensitivity to change: a critical analysis. Int J Rehabil Res 2003; 26: 85–91.
Musselman KE . Clinical significance testing in rehabilitation research: What, why and how? Physical Ther Rev 2007; 12: 287–296.
Musselman KE, Yang JF . Walking tasks encountered by urban-dwelling adults and persons with incomplete spinal cord injuries. J Rehabil Med 2007; 39: 567–574.
Lam T, Noonan VK, Eng JJ SCIRE Research Team. A systematic review of functional ambulation outcome measures in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2008; 46: 246–254.
Field-Fote EC, Roach KE . Influence of a locomotor training approach on walking speed and distance in people with chronic spinal cord injury: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 48–60.
van Hedel HJ, Wirz M, Dietz V . Assessing walking ability in subjects with spinal cord injury: validity and reliability of 3 walking tests. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 190–196.
Wang YC, Hart DL, Stratford PW, Mioduski JE . Baseline dependency of minimal clinically important improvement. Phys Ther 2011; 91: 675–688.
Scott SC, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE . Statistical assessment of ordinal outcomes in comparative studies. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 45–55.
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR . Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 395–407.
King MT . A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2011; 11: 171–184.
Wright A, Hannon J, Hegedus EJ, Kavchak AE . Clinimetrics corner: a closer look at the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). J Man Manip Ther 2012; 20: 160–166.
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW . Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41: 582–592.
Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky F . Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 861–873.
Cohen J . Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA. 1988.
Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, Williams GR, Lipscomb J, Matchar D . Determining clinically important differnce in health status measures: a general approach with illustration tot he Health Utilities Index Mark II. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 15: 141–155.
Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ . How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 69.
Revicki D, Hays SD, Cella D, Sloan J . Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 102–109.
Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Choi Y, Chou R . Validation of a consensus-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold using an objective functional external anchor. Spine J 2013; 13: 889–893.
Cella D, Eton DT, Fairchough DL, Bonomi P, Heyes AE, Silberman C et al. What is clinically meaningful change on the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT-L) questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 285–295.
Lammertse D, Tuszynski MH, Steeves JD, Curt A, Fawcett JW, Rask C et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury (SCI) as developed by the ICCP Panel: Clinical trial design. Spinal Cord 2007; 45: 232–242.
World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. WHO: Geneva, Switzerland. 2001.
Kirchberger I, Sinnott A, Charlifue S, Kovindha A, Lüthi H, Campbell R et al. Functioning and disability in spinal cord injury from the consumer perspective: an international qualitative study using focus groups and the ICF. Spinal Cord 2010; 48: 603–613.
Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A . SCIM-spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997; 35: 850–856.
Anderson KD, Acuff ME, Arp BG, Backus D, Chun S, Fisher K et al. United States (US) multi-center study to assess the validity and reliability of the spinal cord independence measure (SCIM III). Spinal Cord 2011; 49: 880–885.
Kalsi-Ryan S, Beaton D, Curt A, Duff S, Popovic MR, Rudhe C et al. The graded redefined assessment of strength sensibility and prehension: reliability and validity. J Neurotrauma 2012; 29: 905–914.
Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, Overholser JD, Richardson GN . Quantifying handicap: a new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 519–526.
Tate D, Forchheimer M, Maynard F, Dijkers M . Predicting depression and psychological distress in persons with spinal cord injury based on indicators of handicap. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 73: 175–183.
Marino RJ, Jones L, Kirshblum S, Tal J, Dasgupta A . Reliability and repeatability of the motor and sensory examination of the international standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2008; 31: 166–170.
Furlan JC, Fehlings MG, Tator CH, Davis AM . Motor and sensory assessment of patients in clinical trials for pharmacological therapy of acute spinal cord injury: psychometric properties of the ASIA standards. J Neurotrauma 2008; 25: 1273–1301.
Bluvshtein V, Front L, Catz A, Aidinoff E, Gelernter I, Hart J et al. SCIM III is reliable and valid in a separate analysis for traumatic spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 2011; 49: 292–296.
Lumley MA, Cohen JL, Borszcz GS, Cano A, Radcliffe AM, Porter LS et al. Pain and emotion: A biopsychosocial review of recent research. J Clin Psychol 2011; 67: 942–968.
Jensen MP, Dworkin RH, Gammaitoni AR, Olaleye DO, Oleka N, Galer BS . Assessment of pain quality in chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain clinical trials with the Neuropathic Pain Scale. J Pain 2005; 6: 98–106.
Hallstrom I, Norrbrink C . Screening tools for neuropathic pain: can they be of use in individuals with spinal cord injury? Pain 2011; 152: 772–779.
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Olaleye DO, Oleka N, Galer BS . Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005; 113: 9–19.
Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG, Chou R . What does/should the minimum clinically important difference measure? A reconsideration of its clinically value in evaluating efficacy of lumbar fusion surgery. Clin J Pain 2012; 28: 387–397.
Cardenas DD, Nieshoff EC, Suda K, Goto S, Sanin L, Kaneko T et al. A randomized trial of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury. Neurology 2013; 80: 533–539.
Hays RD, Woolley JM . The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 419–423.
van Hedel HJ, Dokladal P, Hotz-Boendermaker S . Mismatch between investigator-determined and patient-reported independence after spinal cord injury: Consequences for rehabilitation and trials. Neurorehab Neural Repair 2011; 25: 855–864.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the support and encouragement of the funders and contributing members of SCOPE (Spinal Cord Outcomes Partnership Endeavor, http://www.scope-sci.org) and EMSCI (European Multicenter Study about spinal Cord Injury, http://www.emsci.org).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, X., Liu, J., Tanadini, L. et al. Challenges for defining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 53, 84–91 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.232
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2014.232
This article is cited by
-
Monitoring outcome measures for cardiometabolic disease during rehabilitation and follow-up in people with spinal cord injury
Spinal Cord (2024)
-
The importance of clinical importance when determining the target difference in sample size calculations
Trials (2023)
-
Duroplasty for injured cervical spinal cord with uncontrolled swelling: protocol of the DISCUS randomized controlled trial
Trials (2023)
-
Physiotherapy using a free-standing robotic exoskeleton for patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (2021)
-
Long-term course of anterior spinal cord herniation presenting with an upper motor neuron syndrome: case report illustrating diagnostic and therapeutic implications
BMC Neurology (2020)
