Citation map · Study

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

16 references·16 citing·32 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

1986STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT47,910 cited
1992The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.33,714 cited
1992The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)30,026 cited
1965Akufo and Ibarapa16,856 cited
1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.7,931 cited
1991Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research.7,762 cited
1989Measurement of health status4,979 cited
2003Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life4,692 cited
1989Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status2,396 cited
1995Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?2,206 cited
1994Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire1,824 cited
2002Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures1,505 cited
2003Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life1,333 cited
1999Determining Clinically Important Differences in Health Status Measures908 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

1999

Further Evidence Supporting an SEM-Based Criterion for Identifying Meaningful Intra-Individual Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life

861 cited

1994Statistical Methodology for the Concurrent Assessment of Interrater and Intrarater Reliability: Using Goniometric Measurements as an Example636 cited

Cited by

2019Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures396 cited
2020Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study261 cited
2016Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures—a systematic review239 cited
2012The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: Time to end malpractice?190 cited
2015Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis185 cited
2010Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units161 cited
2010The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference154 cited
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 patients153 cited
2013Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease150 cited
2015Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol148 cited
2017Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations115 cited
2020Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey114 cited
2018Minimal Clinically Important Difference99 cited
2012When Minimal Detectable Change Exceeds a Diagnostic Test–Based Threshold Change Value for an Outcome Measure: Resolving the Conflict77 cited
2012Comparison of Distribution‐ and Anchor‐Based Approaches to Infer Changes in Health‐Related Quality of Life of Prostate Cancer Survivors77 cited
2012Need of minimal important difference for oral health‐related quality of life measures76 cited