Literature DB >> 8892488

On the debate over methods for estimating the clinically important difference.

D A Redelmeier1, G H Guyatt, R S Goldstein.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  1996        PMID： 8892488     DOI： 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00208-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN： 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


× No keyword cloud information.
  3 in total

Review 1.  Sample size determination for cost-effectiveness trials.

Authors:  Andrew R Willan
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 2.  Health status measurement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  P W Jones
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 9.139

3.  How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.

Authors:  Jan L Brozek; Gordon H Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.186
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.