There is a growing awareness of the significance of using minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in stroke research. An MCID is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. This review is the first to provide a comprehensive summary of various scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in stroke research and their MCID values reported in the literature, including a concise overview of the concept of and methods for determining MCIDs in stroke research. Despite the controversies and limitations surrounding the estimation of MCIDs, their importance in modern clinical trials cannot be overstated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are recommended for estimating MCIDs, with patient self-evaluation being a crucial component in capturing the patient’s perspective on their health. A combination of methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of treatment effects, and incorporating the patient’s perspective can enhance the care of stroke patients.

Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. Using validated MCID thresholds for outcomes powers trials adequately to detect meaningful treatment effects, aids in their interpretation and guides development of new outcome measures. To provide a comprehensive summary of MCID thresholds of various symptom severity scales reported in movement disorder. We conducted systematic review of the literature and included studies of one or more movement disorders, and reporting MCID scales. 2763 reports were screened. Final review included 32 studies. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment showed most studies were of good quality. Most commonly evaluated scale was Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (11 out of 32). Four studies assessing MDS-UPDRS had assessed its different sub-parts, reporting a change of 2.64,3.05,3.25 and 0.9 points to detect clinically meaningful improvement and 2.45,2.51,4.63 and 0.8 points to detect clinically meaningful worsening, for the Part I, II, III and IV, respectively. For Parts II + III, I + II + III and I + II + III + IV, MCID thresholds reported for clinically meaningful improvement were 5.73, 4.9, 6.7 and 7.1 points respectively; while those for clinically meaningful worsening were 4.7, 4.2, 5.2 and 6.3 points, respectively. MCID thresholds reported for other scales included Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS), Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSRS), and Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Scale (BFMD). This review summarizes all the MCID thresholds currently reported in Movement disorders research and provides a comprehensive resource for future trials, highlighting the need for standardized and validated MCID scales in movement disorder research.

Background: Bacopa monnieri, a herb that has been used for many centuries in India, has shown neuroprotective effects in animal and in vitro studies; human studies on patients with Alzheimer disease have been inconclusive. Objective: The primary objective of this review was to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of B. monnieri in persons with mild, moderate, or severe dementia, or mild cognitive impairment, due to Alzheimer disease. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinical trial registries (World Health Organization, Australia-New Zealand, United States, and South Africa), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL. We intended to include all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared B. monnieri, its extract or active ingredients (at any dosage), with a placebo or a cholinesterase inhibitor among adults with dementia due to Alzheimer disease and in those with mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer disease. Results: Our comprehensive search yielded 5 eligible studies. A total of 3 studies used B. monnieri in combination with herbal extracts while the remaining 2 used B. monnieri extracts only. Two studies compared B. monnieri with donepezil while the others used a placebo as the control. There was considerable variation in the B. monnieri dose used (ranging between 125 mg to 500 mg twice daily) and heterogeneity in treatment duration, follow-up, and outcomes. The major outcomes were Mini-Mental State Examination scores reported in 3 trials, Cognitive subscale scores of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale in 1 study, and a battery of cognitive tests in 2 studies. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, overall, we judged all 5 studies to be at high risk of bias. While all studies reported a statistically significant difference between B. monnieri and the comparator in at least one outcome, we rated the overall quality of evidence for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Postgraduate Institute Memory Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Wechsler Memory Scale to be very low due to downgrading by 2 levels for high risk of bias and 1 more level for impreciseness due to small sample sizes and wide CIs. Conclusions: There was no difference between B. monnieri and the placebo or donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer disease based on very low certainty evidence. No major safety issues were reported in the included trials. Future randomized controlled trials should aim to recruit more participants and report clinically meaningful outcomes. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020169421; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=169421

Disease modification trials in dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have not met with success. One potential criticism of these trials is the lack of sensitive outcome measures. A large number of outcome measures have been employed in dementia and MCI trials. This review aims to describe and analyze the utility of cognitive/clinical outcome measures in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and MCI trials. Methods: A PubMed search was conducted using relevant MeSH terms and exploded keywords. The search was confined to English language publications of human studies from the last five years which describe the latest trends in the use of outcome measures. Results: Despite broad use, the outcome measures employed are heterogeneous, with little data on correlations between scales. Another problem is that most studies are over-reliant on clinician/researcher assessment and cognitive outcomes, and there is a definite lack of stakeholder input. Finetuning of the paradigm is also required for people with early-stage disease, mild to moderate disease, and advanced dementia, as the outcome measures in these subgroups have varying relevance. Disease modification/prevention is an appropriate goal in early disease, whereas palliation and freedom from discomfort are paramount in later stages. The outcome measures selected must be suitable for and sensitive to these particular care goals. Although there is a shift to enrich MCI cohorts using a biomarker-based approach, the clinical relevance of such outcome measures remains uncertain. Conclusions: Outcome measures in dementia/MCI trials remain inhomogeneous and diverse, despite extensive use. Outcome measures fall within several paradigms, including cognitive, functional, quality-of-life, biomarker-based, and patient-reported outcome measures. The success of future disease-modifying trials is reliant to a large extent on the selection of outcome measures which combine all outcomes of clinical relevance as well as clinical meaning. Outcome measures should be tied to the type and stage of dementia and to the specific interventions employed.