Skip to main content
ISPRM 2026 Main banner
Final Program


Final Congress Guide

Clinical Sciences/Health Conditions

300 Section - Establishing Anchor-Based Minimal Important Change Values for the Functional Independence Measure in Older Patients with Vertebral Compression Fractures

Tuesday, May 19, 2026
6:00 PM - 7:30 PM PT

    Presenting Author/Autor expositor(s)

  • TI

    Takumi Igusa, MS

    Doctoral Student
    Graduate School of Health Sciences, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
    Maebashi, Gumma, Japan

    • Co-Author/Coautor(s)

  • HU

    Hiroyuki Uchida, BS

    Master Student
    Graduate School of Health Sciences, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
    Maebashi, Gumma, Japan

  • SK

    Senichiro Kikuchi, MD

    Professor
    Graduate School of Health Sciences, Gunma University, Maebashi, Japan
    Maebashi, Gumma, Japan

    • Corresponding Author/Autor a quien dirigir la corr(s)

  • KH

    Kazuki Hirao, PhD

    Professor
    School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kagoshima University
    Kagoshima, Kagoshima, Japan

Objectives : In rehabilitation medicine, the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) is widely used to assess activities of daily living (ADL), but its minimal important change (MIC) in patients with vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) remains unclear. The MIC is defined as the smallest within-person change perceived by patients or clinicians to represent an important improvement. The MIC is crucial in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions across various studies and in setting of treatment goals. Accordingly, this study aimed to estimate the MIC of the FIM in patients with VCFs.

Design: This study estimated the MIC (the ROC method [MICroc], the predictive modeling method [MICpred], the adjusted predictive modeling method [MICadj]) of the FIM in 290 older patients with VCFs admitted at a convalescent rehabilitation ward in Japan between January 2020 and December 2022, using discharge destination (home vs. elsewhere) as the anchor. The 95% confidence intervals for the MIC estimated using each method (MICroc, MICpred, and MICadj) were calculated using the bootstrap method (n = 2000).

Results: The MICroc, MICpred, and MICadj, respectively, were 31.5 (95% CI, −12.00–42.50), 26.39 (95% CI, 22.27–30.40), and 22.15 (95% CI, 17.29–26.79) for FIMmotor, while these were 0.5 (95% CI, −8.50–9.50), 0.6 (95% CI, −1.04–2.23), and −1.09 (95% CI, −2.98–0.70) for FIMcognitive. For FIMtotal, these were 40.5 (95% CI, −12.50–57.43), 27.01 (95% CI, 21.71–32.26), and 21.53 (95% CI, 15.21–27.37), respectively.

Conclusion: This study is the first to estimate the MIC of the FIM using multiple methods in older patients with VCFs admitted at a CRW, providing new insights into the definition of clinically meaningful changes in rehabilitation assessment. Future studies should incorporate multidimensional anchors, including patient-reported outcomes, and employ more rigorous prospective study designs and multicenter collaborations.