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 *

271 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27387456)

  • 1. Minimal important differences for fatigue patient reported outcome measures-a systematic review.
    Nordin Å; Taft C; Lundgren-Nilsson Å; Dencker A
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2016 May; 16():62. PubMed ID: 27387456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Minimal important differences for improvement in shoulder condition patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review to inform a
    Hao Q; Devji T; Zeraatkar D; Wang Y; Qasim A; Siemieniuk RAC; Vandvik PO; Lähdeoja T; Carrasco-Labra A; Agoritsas T; Guyatt G
    BMJ Open; 2019 Feb; 9(2):e028777. PubMed ID: 30787096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Serious reporting deficiencies exist in minimal important difference studies: current state and suggestions for improvement.
    Carrasco-Labra A; Devji T; Qasim A; Phillips M; Johnston BC; Devasenapathy N; Zeraatkar D; Bhatt M; Jin X; Brignardello-Petersen R; Urquhart O; Foroutan F; Schandelmaier S; Pardo-Hernandez H; Vernooij RW; Huang H; Rizwan Y; Siemieniuk R; Lytvyn L; Patrick DL; Ebrahim S; Furukawa TA; Nesrallah G; Schunemann HJ; Bhandari M; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Oct; 150():25-32. PubMed ID: 35760237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Credibility and Generalization of the Minimally Important Difference Concept in Dermatology: A Scoping Review.
    Speeckaert R; Belpaire A; Herbelet S; Lambert J; van Geel N
    JAMA Dermatol; 2022 Nov; 158(11):1304-1314. PubMed ID: 36044227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mind the methods of determining minimal important differences: three critical issues to consider.
    Devji T; Carrasco-Labra A; Guyatt G
    Evid Based Ment Health; 2021 May; 24(2):77-81. PubMed ID: 32839275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.
    Devji T; Carrasco-Labra A; Qasim A; Phillips M; Johnston BC; Devasenapathy N; Zeraatkar D; Bhatt M; Jin X; Brignardello-Petersen R; Urquhart O; Foroutan F; Schandelmaier S; Pardo-Hernandez H; Vernooij RW; Huang H; Rizwan Y; Siemieniuk R; Lytvyn L; Patrick DL; Ebrahim S; Furukawa T; Nesrallah G; Schünemann HJ; Bhandari M; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
    BMJ; 2020 Jun; 369():m1714. PubMed ID: 32499297
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Minimal important difference estimates for patient-reported outcomes: A systematic survey.
    Carrasco-Labra A; Devji T; Qasim A; Phillips MR; Wang Y; Johnston BC; Devasenapathy N; Zeraatkar D; Bhatt M; Jin X; Brignardello-Petersen R; Urquhart O; Foroutan F; Schandelmaier S; Pardo-Hernandez H; Hao Q; Wong V; Ye Z; Yao L; Vernooij RWM; Huang H; Zeng L; Rizwan Y; Siemieniuk R; Lytvyn L; Patrick DL; Ebrahim S; Furukawa TA; Nesrallah G; Schünemann HJ; Bhandari M; Thabane L; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 May; 133():61-71. PubMed ID: 33321175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Minimally important difference estimates and methods: a protocol.
    Johnston BC; Ebrahim S; Carrasco-Labra A; Furukawa TA; Patrick DL; Crawford MW; Hemmelgarn BR; Schunemann HJ; Guyatt GH; Nesrallah G
    BMJ Open; 2015 Oct; 5(10):e007953. PubMed ID: 26428330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Systematic review: patient-reported outcome measures in coeliac disease for regulatory submissions.
    Canestaro WJ; Edwards TC; Patrick DL
    Aliment Pharmacol Ther; 2016 Aug; 44(4):313-31. PubMed ID: 27349458
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Most-Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Within Otolaryngology-Revisiting the Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review.
    Peterson AM; Miller B; Ioerger P; Hentati F; Doering MM; Kallogjeri D; Piccirillo JF
    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2023 Mar; 149(3):261-276. PubMed ID: 36729451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Minimally Important Differences in Patient or Proxy-Reported Outcome Studies Relevant to Children: A Systematic Review.
    Ebrahim S; Vercammen K; Sivanand A; Guyatt GH; Carrasco-Labra A; Fernandes RM; Crawford MW; Nesrallah G; Johnston BC
    Pediatrics; 2017 Mar; 139(3):. PubMed ID: 28196931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A systematic survey identified methodological issues in studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences in patient-reported outcomes.
    Wang Y; Devji T; Qasim A; Hao Q; Wong V; Bhatt M; Prasad M; Wang Y; Noori A; Xiao Y; Ghadimi M; Lozano LEC; Phillips MR; Carrasco-Labra A; King M; Terluin B; Terwee CB; Walsh M; Furukawa TA; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Feb; 142():144-151. PubMed ID: 34752937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Use in Guidelines Published by the American Academy of Ophthalmology: A Review.
    Yu CW; Nanji K; Hatamnejad A; Gemae M; Joarder I; Achunair A; Devji T; Phillips M; Zeraatkar D; Steel DH; Guymer RH; Sivaprasad S; Wykoff CC; Chaudhary V
    Ophthalmology; 2023 Nov; 130(11):1201-1211. PubMed ID: 37429499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An extension minimal important difference credibility item addressing construct proximity is a reliable alternative to the correlation item.
    Wang Y; Devji T; Carrasco-Labra A; Qasim A; Hao Q; Kum E; Devasenapathy N; King MT; Terluin B; Terwee CB; Walsh M; Furukawa TA; Tsujimoto Y; Guyatt GH
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 May; 157():46-52. PubMed ID: 36878330
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Minimally important differences were estimated for six Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients.
    Yost KJ; Eton DT; Garcia SF; Cella D
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 May; 64(5):507-16. PubMed ID: 21447427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Understanding the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.
    Sedaghat AR
    Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2019 Oct; 161(4):551-560. PubMed ID: 31159641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Identifying the minimal important difference in patient-reported outcome measures in the field of people with severe mental illness: a pre-post-analysis of the Illness Management and Recovery Programme.
    Beentjes TAA; Teerenstra S; Vermeulen H; Goossens PJJ; der Sanden MWGN; van Gaal BGI
    Qual Life Res; 2021 Jun; 30(6):1723-1733. PubMed ID: 33594528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Lack of content overlap and essential dimensions - A review of measures used for post-stroke fatigue.
    Skogestad IJ; Kirkevold M; Indredavik B; Gay CL; Lerdal A;
    J Psychosom Res; 2019 Sep; 124():109759. PubMed ID: 31443803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for goalsetting and outcome measurement in primary care physiotherapy, an explorative field study.
    van Dulmen SA; van der Wees PJ; Bart Staal J; Braspenning JC; Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW
    Physiotherapy; 2017 Mar; 103(1):66-72. PubMed ID: 27033783
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for assessing perceived listening effort in hearing loss: protocol for a systematic review.
    Hughes SE; Rapport FL; Boisvert I; McMahon CM; Hutchings HA
    BMJ Open; 2017 Jun; 7(5):e014995. PubMed ID: 28592576
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.