Literature DB >> 11327272

Foundations of the minimal clinically important difference for imaging.

M N Lassere1, D van der Heijde, K R Johnson.   

Abstract

This article develops a generic conceptual framework for defining and validating the concept of minimal clinically important difference. We propose 3 approaches. The first uses statistical descriptions of the population ("distribution based"), the second relies on experts ("opinion based"), and a third is based on sequential hypothesis formation and testing ("predictive/data driven based"). The first 2 approaches serve as proxies for the third, which is an experimentally driven approach, asking such questions as "What carries the least penalty?" or "What imparts the greatest gain?" As an experimental approach, it has the expected drawbacks, including the need for greater resources, and the need to tolerate trial and error en route, compared to the other 2 models.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11327272

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


  6 in total

1.  Commentary--goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference for pain and disability instruments in low back pain patients.

Authors:  Henrik H Lauridsen; Jan Hartvigsen; Claus Manniche; Lars Korsholm; Niels Grunnet-Nilsson
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 3.  Approaches for estimating minimal clinically important differences in systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Sharan K Rai; Jinoos Yazdany; Paul R Fortin; J Antonio Aviña-Zubieta
Journal:  Arthritis Res Ther       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 5.156

4.  A diffusion tensor-based method facilitating volumetric assessment of fiber orientations in skeletal muscle.

Authors:  Laura Secondulfo; Melissa T Hooijmans; Joep J Suskens; Valentina Mazzoli; Mario Maas; Johannes L Tol; Aart J Nederveen; Gustav J Strijkers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Minimum clinically important difference of the Social Functioning in Dementia Scale (SF-DEM): cross-sectional study and Delphi survey.

Authors:  Tamara Levene; Gill Livingston; Sube Banerjee; Andrew Sommerlad
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.

Authors:  Yosra Mouelhi; Elisabeth Jouve; Christel Castelli; Stéphanie Gentile
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.186

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.