Literature DB >> 11246688

Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods.

G Wells1, D Beaton, B Shea, M Boers, L Simon, V Strand, P Brooks, P Tugwell.   

Abstract

Determining a minimal clinically important difference to be detected in a clinical trial is a critical methodological step in the design of a study. In this review, the different methods that have been used in detecting important changes or differences are considered and categorized according to a classification system consisting of which groups are contrasted, the setting of the results, and the type of change of difference being quantified. It was found that most methods and procedures for deriving minimal clinically important differences considered important changes from the viewpoint of a group of patients. Development of methods that focus on individuals should be a goal of the future.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11246688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rheumatol        ISSN: 0315-162X            Impact factor:   4.666


  80 in total

Review 1.  Peripheral response to cervical or thoracic spinal manual therapy: an evidence-based review with meta analysis.

Authors:  Jennifer Chu; Diane D Allen; Sarah Pawlowsky; Betty Smoot
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2014-11

Review 2.  Determination of the clinical importance of study results.

Authors:  Malcolm Man-Son-Hing; Andreas Laupacis; Keith O'Rourke; Frank J Molnar; Jeffery Mahon; Karen B Y Chan; George Wells
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Clinician's Commentary.

Authors:  F Virginia Wright
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 1.037

4.  Clinical trials in orthopaedics research. Part III. Overcoming operational challenges in the design and conduct of randomized clinical trials in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  Elena Losina; James Wright; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Chao Ma; Shaoling Wu; Lingjun Xiao; Yunlian Xue
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  ISSLS prize in clinical science 2020: the reliability and interpretability of score change in lumbar spine research.

Authors:  C Parai; O Hägg; B Lind; H Brisby
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-11-23       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Minimal Clinically Important Differences (MCID) in Assessing Outcomes of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Authors:  Elina A Stefanovics; Robert A Rosenheck; Karen M Jones; Grant Huang; John H Krystal
Journal:  Psychiatr Q       Date:  2018-03

8.  The quality of life of parents of children with atopic dermatitis: interpretation of PIQoL-AD scores.

Authors:  D M Meads; S P McKenna; K Kahler
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Standing data disproves biomechanical mechanism for balance-based torso-weighting.

Authors:  Ajay Crittendon; Danielle O'Neill; Gail L Widener; Diane D Allen
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 3.966

10.  Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders.

Authors:  Florence Tubach; Philippe Ravaud; Dorcas Beaton; Maarten Boers; Claire Bombardier; David T Felson; Desireé van der Heijde; George Wells; Maxime Dougados
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 4.666

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.