These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

1094 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18177782)

  • 1. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.
    Revicki D; Hays RD; Cella D; Sloan J
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Feb; 61(2):102-9. PubMed ID: 18177782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health-related quality of life.
    Wiklund I
    Fundam Clin Pharmacol; 2004 Jun; 18(3):351-63. PubMed ID: 15147288
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure.
    Brozek JL; Guyatt GH; Schünemann HJ
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2006 Sep; 4():69. PubMed ID: 17005037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Responsiveness of patient-based and external rating scales in multiple sclerosis: head-to-head comparison in three clinical settings.
    Gold SM; Schulz H; Stein H; Solf K; Schulz KH; Heesen C
    J Neurol Sci; 2010 Mar; 290(1-2):102-6. PubMed ID: 19922955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
    Fitzpatrick R; Davey C; Buxton MJ; Jones DR
    Health Technol Assess; 1998; 2(14):i-iv, 1-74. PubMed ID: 9812244
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
    Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
    Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The minimally important difference for the health assessment questionnaire in rheumatoid arthritis clinical practice is smaller than in randomized controlled trials.
    Pope JE; Khanna D; Norrie D; Ouimet JM
    J Rheumatol; 2009 Feb; 36(2):254-9. PubMed ID: 19132791
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods.
    King MT
    Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2011 Apr; 11(2):171-84. PubMed ID: 21476819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes.
    Revicki DA; Cella D; Hays RD; Sloan JA; Lenderking WR; Aaronson NK
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2006 Sep; 4():70. PubMed ID: 17005038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues.
    Tubach F; Wells GA; Ravaud P; Dougados M
    J Rheumatol; 2005 Oct; 32(10):2025-9. PubMed ID: 16206363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Validation of the sleep impact scale in patients with major depressive disorder and insomnia.
    Lasch K; Joish VN; Zhu Y; Rosa K; Qiu C; Crawford B
    Curr Med Res Opin; 2009 Jul; 25(7):1699-710. PubMed ID: 19505198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: a patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative.
    Garcia SF; Cella D; Clauser SB; Flynn KE; Lad T; Lai JS; Reeve BB; Smith AW; Stone AA; Weinfurt K
    J Clin Oncol; 2007 Nov; 25(32):5106-12. PubMed ID: 17991929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Understanding clinical trial outcomes: design, analysis, and interpretation.
    Jacobe HT; Leitenberger JJ; Bergstresser PR
    Dermatol Ther; 2007; 20(2):77-85. PubMed ID: 17537135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Minimal important difference (MID) of the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): results from patients with chronic idiopathic urticaria.
    Shikiar R; Harding G; Leahy M; Lennox RD
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2005 May; 3():36. PubMed ID: 15907211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Distribution-based and anchor-based approaches provided different interpretability estimates for the Hydrocephalus Outcome Questionnaire.
    Kulkarni AV
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Feb; 59(2):176-84. PubMed ID: 16426953
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Translating the science of patient-reported outcomes assessment into clinical practice.
    Osoba D
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2007; (37):5-11. PubMed ID: 17951224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Outcomes assessment in fracture healing trials: a primer.
    Kooistra BW; Sprague S; Bhandari M; Schemitsch EH
    J Orthop Trauma; 2010 Mar; 24 Suppl 1():S71-5. PubMed ID: 20182241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evidence-based outcomes in pain research and clinical practice.
    Gatchel RJ; Theodore BR
    Pain Pract; 2008; 8(6):452-60. PubMed ID: 19000173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Recommendations for assessing patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life in clinical trials on allergy: a GA(2)LEN taskforce position paper.
    Baiardini I; Bousquet PJ; Brzoza Z; Canonica GW; Compalati E; Fiocchi A; Fokkens W; van Wijk RG; La Grutta S; Lombardi C; Maurer M; Pinto AM; Ridolo E; Senna GE; Terreehorst I; Bom AT; Bousquet J; Zuberbier T; Braido F;
    Allergy; 2010 Mar; 65(3):290-5. PubMed ID: 19930232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Methods to determine minimal clinically important difference].
    Hu G; Huang Q; Huang Z; Sun Z
    Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban; 2009 Nov; 34(11):1058-62. PubMed ID: 19952393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 55.