SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference · Study

ArticleShelves

ArticleThe minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference

Dan Turner2009

Article2009

The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference

Dan Turner · Holger Jens Schünemann · Lauren E. Griffith · Dorcas Beaton · Anne Marie Griffiths · Jeffrey Critch +1 more

356 citations·0/0 files stored·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Reliability and Agreement in Measurement

Abstract

No abstract was published for this record.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 356 citations exist upstream.

References

1986STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT 1992The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.1992The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)1965Akufo and Ibarapa 1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.1989Measurement of health status 2003Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life

Cited by

2019Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures 2020Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study 2016Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures—a systematic review 2012The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: Time to end malpractice?2015Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis

Related works

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

2004An integrated method to determine meaningful changes in health-related quality of lifearticle · 10 shared references 2007Standard error of measurement as a valid alternative to minimally important difference for evaluating the magnitude of changes in patient-reported outcomes measuresarticle · 10 shared references 2000Identifying meaningful intra‐individual change standards for health‐related quality of life measuresarticle · 9 shared references 2007Measuring Clinically Meaningful Change Following Mental Health Treatmentarticle · 9 shared references 2012Comparison of Distribution‐ and Anchor‐Based Approaches to Infer Changes in Health‐Related Quality of Life of Prostate Cancer Survivorsarticle · 9 shared references 2005Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomesarticle · 8 shared references

Details

Year2009

Typearticle

Published2009-10-02

VenueJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

ISSN-L0895-4356

Languageen

Citations356

Files0 public / 0

ShelfPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Identifiers

doi10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024

openalex_workW2071921759

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.

2010Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units

2010The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference

2017The anchor-based minimal important change, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis or predictive modeling, may need to be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients