Literature DB >> 18620634

[Commentary: Reassessment of the validity of the QPL-35 questionnaire: sensitivity to change and significant changes and minimum significant difference].

Enriqueta Pujol Ribera1.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2008        PMID： 18620634      PMCID： PMC7659811          DOI： 10.1157/13124125

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aten Primaria        ISSN： 0212-6567            Impact factor:   1.137


× No keyword cloud information.
  6 in total

Review 1.  Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.

Authors:  J A Husted; R J Cook; V T Farewell; D D Gladman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Responsiveness in quality-of-life assessment: nomenclature, determinants, and clinical applications.

Authors:  R S Epstein
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation.

Authors:  C B Terwee; F W Dekker; W M Wiersinga; M F Prummel; P M M Bossuyt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 4.  Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria.

Authors:  Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes.

Authors:  Kathleen W Wyrwich; Monika Bullinger; Neil Aaronson; Ron D Hays; Donald L Patrick; Tara Symonds
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.