Literature DB >> 11845014

Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research.

Dorcas E Beaton1, Marteen Boers, George A Wells.   

Abstract

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for an instrument is a much sought after, but elusive figure. In this review we will highlight new findings in this area, including taxonomy of MCID, methods used to ascertain MCID, the perspective taken for evaluating importance, and other sources of variation for MCID values. In the end we believe the MCID will be a context-specific value rather than a fixed number. The review highlights the need to do methodological research in this area, especially concurrent comparisons between approaches, or across different patient groups. There are many faces to the MCID, it is not a simple concept, nor simple to calculate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11845014     DOI: 10.1097/00002281-200203000-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Rheumatol        ISSN: 1040-8711            Impact factor:   5.006


  130 in total

1.  Patients with rheumatoid arthritis in clinical care.

Authors:  J S Smolen; D Aletaha
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 19.103

2.  The minimal important difference in the 6-minute walk test for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Authors:  Stephen C Mathai; Milo A Puhan; Diana Lam; Robert A Wise
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 21.405

3.  Minimal clinically important differences of disease activity indices in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus.

Authors:  Hermine I Brunner; Gloria C Higgins; Marisa S Klein-Gitelman; Sivia K Lapidus; Judyann C Olson; Karen Onel; Marilynn Punaro; Jun Ying; Edward H Giannini
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.794

4.  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

Review 5.  Methodological aspects of outcomes research.

Authors:  Rudi Hiebert; Margareta Nordin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2005-11-30       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Issues in selecting outcome measures to assess functional recovery after stroke.

Authors:  Sharon Barak; Pamela W Duncan
Journal:  NeuroRx       Date:  2006-10

7.  Neural mobilization: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with an analysis of therapeutic efficacy.

Authors:  Richard F Ellis; Wayne A Hing
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

8.  Predicting improvement of functioning in disability claimants.

Authors:  K Nieuwenhuijsen; L R Cornelius; M R de Boer; J W Groothoff; M H W Frings-Dresen; J J L van der Klink; S Brouwer
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2014-09

9.  Improvement in patient-reported outcomes after lung transplantation is not impacted by the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transplantation.

Authors:  Nicholas A Kolaitis; Allison Soong; Pavan Shrestha; Hanjing Zhuo; John Neuhaus; Patti P Katz; John R Greenland; Jeffrey Golden; Lorriana E Leard; Rupal J Shah; Steven R Hays; Jasleen Kukreja; Mary Ellen Kleinhenz; Paul D Blanc; Jonathan P Singer
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 5.209

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.