Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR)

Spinal Cord volume 61, pages 652–657 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Study design

Retrospective cohort study.

Objectives

To find minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR) in Thai participants with spinal cord injury (SCI).

Setting

Rehabilitation ward at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital.

Methods

Data of individuals with SCI who were not diagnosed with central cord syndrome and were admitted for the first time for rehabilitation were analyzed. Upper extremities motor score, self-care and mobility items of Spinal Cord Independence Measure version III were collected and used to calculate SCAR difference between data on date of admission and discharge. MCID and MDC were calculated by distribution-based method and categorized for each subgroup according to SCI characteristics.

Results

From data of 311 individuals, MCID of SCAR is approximately 4 for individual with tetraplegia AIS A, B, C; and individual with AIS D at any level, and 2 for individual with paraplegia AIS A, B, C. MDC of SCAR should be 1 for individual with tetraplegia AIS A, B, C; and individual with AIS D at any level and 0.5 for individual with paraplegia AIS A, B, C.

Conclusion

This study provides MCID and MDC of SCAR in each subgroup. These values could be used as a benchmark for clinicians and researchers to determine whether participant has significant improvement or not after receiving an intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Bryce TN, Huang V, Escalon MX. Spinal cord injury. In: Cifu DX, Eapen BC, Johns JS, Kowalske K, (eds). Braddom’s physical medicine and rehabilitation. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2021. p. 1049–1100.

  2. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Tesio L, Biering-Sorensen F, Weeks C, Laramee MT, et al. A multicenter international study on the Spinal Cord Independence Measure, version III: Rasch psychometric validation. Spinal Cord. 2007;45:275–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reed R, Mehra M, Kirshblum S, Maier D, Lammertse D, Blight A, et al. Spinal cord ability ruler: an interval scale to measure volitional performance after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:730–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bach Jønsson A, Møller Thygesen M, Krogh S, Kasch H. Feasibility of predicting improvements in motor function following SCI using the SCAR outcome measure: a retrospective study. Spinal Cord. 2019;57:966–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pattanakuhar S, Kammuang-lue P, Kovindha A, Komaratat N, Mahachai R, Chotiyarnwong C. Is admission to an SCI specialized rehabilitation facility associated with better functional outcomes? Analysis of data from the Thai Spinal Cord Injury Registry. Spinal Cord. 2019;57:684–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Van Middendorp JJ, Pouw MH, Hayes KC, Williams R, Chhabra HS, Putz C, et al. Diagnostic criteria of traumatic central cord syndrome. Part 2: a questionnaire survey among spine specialists. Spinal Cord. 2010;48:657–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kirshblum S, Snider B, Rupp R, Read MS. Updates of the International Standards for Neurologic Classification of Spinal Cord Injury: 2015 and 2019. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2020;31:319–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dhand NK, Khatkar MS. Sample size calculator for estimating a single mean. 2020. http://statulator.com/SampleSize/ss1M.html.

  9. Biering-Sørensen F, DeVivo MJ, Charlifue S, Chen Y, New PW, Noonan V, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set (version 2.0)-including standardization of reporting. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:759–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr., Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7:541–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Engel L, Beaton DE, Touma Z. Minimal clinically important difference: a review of outcome measure score interpretation. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018;44:177–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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;41:582–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ousmen A, Touraine C, Deliu N, Cottone F, Bonnetain F, Efficace F, et al. Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:228.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Hägg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Beninato M, Fernandes A, Plummer LS. Minimal clinically important difference of the functional gait assessment in older adults. Phys Ther. 2014;94:1594–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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;35:1808–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Corallo V, Torre M, Ferrara G, Guerra F, Nicosia G, Romanelli E, et al. 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. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017;53:508–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care. 1999;37:469–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Storm FA, Petrarca M, Beretta E, Strazzer S, Piccinini L, Maghini C, et al. Minimum clinically important difference of gross motor function and gait endurance in children with motor impairment: a comparison of distribution-based approaches. Biomed Res Int. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2794036.

  20. Kay ED, Deutsch A, Fau - Wuermser LA, Wuermser LA. Predicting walking at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation after a traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007;88:745–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Burns SP, Golding DG, Rolle WA Jr., Graziani V, Ditunno JF, et al. Recovery of ambulation in motor-incomplete tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1169–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Piovesana A, Senior G. How small is big: sample size and skewness. Assessment. 2018;25:793–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Dr. Tinakon Wongpakaran for providing statistical advice. SP would like to acknowledge the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship 2022, postdoctoral fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Chananan Chaidaroon, Sintip Pattanakuhar & Siam Tongprasert

  2. Department of Family Medicine and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand

    Phichayut Phinyo

  3. Health Services and Clinical Care Unit, Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland

    Sintip Pattanakuhar

Authors
  1. Chananan Chaidaroon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phichayut Phinyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sintip Pattanakuhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Siam Tongprasert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CC designed the research question, collected and analyzed the data, and wrote the preliminary version of the manuscripts. PP designed the research question, analyzed the data, and revised the final version of the manuscripts. SP and ST designed the research question, collected and analyzed the data, wrote the preliminary version, and revised the final version of the manuscripts.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siam Tongprasert.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

All authors declare no competing interests.

ETHICAL APPROVAL

The authors certify that the protocol of this analysis was approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (Study code REH-2563-07303).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaidaroon, C., Phinyo, P., Pattanakuhar, S. et al. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) of Spinal Cord Ability Ruler (SCAR). Spinal Cord 61, 652–657 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00934-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-023-00934-x

Search

Advanced search

Quick links