CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Clinically Important Difference on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale

Shulman, Lisa M., Gruber-Baldini, Ann L., Anderson, Karen E., Fishman, Paul S., Reich, Stephen G., Weiner, William J.·2010·Archives of Neurology
DOI 10.1001/archneurol.2009.295
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To determine the estimates of minimal, moderate, and large clinically important differences (CIDs) for the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Design Cross-sectional analysis of the CIDs for UPDRS total and motor scores was performed on patients with Parkinson disease (PD) using distribution- and anchor-based approaches based on the following 3 external standards: disability (10% on the Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale), disease stage (1 stage on the Hoehn and Yahr Scale), and quality of life (1 SD on the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey). Setting University of Maryland Parkinson Disease and Movement Disorders Center, Patients Six hundred fifty-three patients with PD. Results A minimal CID was 2.3 to 2.7 points on the UPDRS motor score and 4.1 to 4.5 on the UPDRS total score. A moderate CID was 4.5 to 6.7 points on the UPDRS motor score and 8.5 to 10.3 on the UPDRS total score. A large CID was 10.7 to 10.8 points on the UPDRS motor score and 16.4 to 17.8 on the UPDRS total score. Conclusions Concordance among multiple approaches of analysis based on subjective and objective data show that reasonable estimates for the CID on the UPDRS motor score are 2.5 points for minimal, 5.2 for moderate, and 10.8 for large CIDs. Estimates for the UPDRS total score are 4.3 points for minimal, 9.1 for moderate, and 17.1 for large CIDs. These estimates will assist in determining clinically meaningful changes in PD progression and response to therapeu…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archneurol.2009.295

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The observed mean changes in MDS-UPDRS Part III OFF (8.6 low-dose, 23 high-dose) are consistent with a moderate and large clinically important difference in motor scores, respectively.

    “Our data show a mean change of 8.6 points in the low-dose cohort and 23 points in the high-dose cohort, consistent with a moderate and large ‘clinically important difference’ in motor scores41, respectively.”

    From Phase I trial of hES cell-derived dopaminergic neurons for Parkinson’s disease (2025) · cites this paper as [41]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shulman, L. M., Gruber-Baldini, A. L., Anderson, K. E., Fishman, P. S., Reich, S. G., & Weiner, W. J.
Venue
Archives of Neurology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2010-01-01
Volume
67
Issue
1
ISSN
0003-9942
DOI
10.1001/archneurol.2009.295
Cited by
494
References
4
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review