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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34752937)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform
    Devji T; Guyatt GH; Lytvyn L; Brignardello-Petersen R; Foroutan F; Sadeghirad B; Buchbinder R; Poolman RW; Harris IA; Carrasco-Labra A; Siemieniuk RAC; Vandvik PO
    BMJ Open; 2017 May; 7(5):e015587. PubMed ID: 28495818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Minimally important differences for interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 scores in patients with ovarian cancer.
    Musoro JZ; Coens C; Greimel E; King MT; Sprangers MAG; Nordin A; van Dorst EBL; Groenvold M; Cocks K; Velikova G; Flechtner HH; Bottomley A;
    Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Nov; 159(2):515-521. PubMed ID: 32972782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Distribution- and anchor-based methods to determine the minimally important difference on patient-reported outcome questionnaires in oncology: a structured review.
    Ousmen A; Touraine C; Deliu N; Cottone F; Bonnetain F; Efficace F; Brédart A; Mollevi C; Anota A
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2018 Dec; 16(1):228. PubMed ID: 30537955
    [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. Establishing Minimal Important Differences for the VR-12 and SANE Scores in Patients Following Treatment of Rotator Cuff Tears.
    Zhou L; Natarajan M; Miller BS; Gagnier JJ
    Orthop J Sports Med; 2018 Jul; 6(7):2325967118782159. PubMed ID: 30090834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Estimating minimally important differences for two vision-specific quality of life measures.
    Gillespie BW; Musch DC; Niziol LM; Janz NK
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2014 Jun; 55(7):4206-12. PubMed ID: 24906863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluating minimal important differences for the FACT-Melanoma quality of life questionnaire.
    Askew RL; Xing Y; Palmer JL; Cella D; Moye LA; Cormier JN
    Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1144-50. PubMed ID: 19558579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Toward a rigorous assessment of the statistical performances of methods to estimate the Minimal Important Difference of Patient-Reported Outcomes: A protocol for a large-scale simulation study.
    Vanier A; Leroy M; Hardouin JB
    Methods; 2022 Aug; 204():396-409. PubMed ID: 35202798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Patient-reported questionnaires in MS rehabilitation: responsiveness and minimal important difference of the multiple sclerosis questionnaire for physiotherapists (MSQPT).
    van der Maas NA
    BMC Neurol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):50. PubMed ID: 28302081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.