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 *

113 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35202798)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. The minimal perceived change: a formal model of the responder definition according to the patient's meaning of change for patient-reported outcome data analysis and interpretation.
    Vanier A; Sébille V; Blanchin M; Hardouin JB
    BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jun; 21(1):128. PubMed ID: 34154521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
    Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
    Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 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. Comparison of raw and regression approaches to capturing change on patient-reported outcome measures.
    Andrae DA; Foster B; Peipert JD
    Qual Life Res; 2023 May; 32(5):1381-1390. PubMed ID: 36136261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the WOMAC Index After TKA?
    Clement ND; Bardgett M; Weir D; Holland J; Gerrand C; Deehan DJ
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2018 Oct; 476(10):2005-2014. PubMed ID: 30179956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Estimating minimal important differences for several scales assessing function and quality of life in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
    Hodgkins P; Lloyd A; Erder MH; Setyawan J; Weiss MD; Sasané R; Nafees B
    CNS Spectr; 2017 Feb; 22(1):31-40. PubMed ID: 27535815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effectiveness of internet-based e-learning on clinician behavior and patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol.
    Sinclair P; Kable A; Levett-Jones T
    JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep; 2015 Jan; 13(1):52-64. PubMed ID: 26447007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes evaluations in chronic spontaneous urticaria.
    Baiardini I; Canonica GW; La Grutta S; Braido F
    Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol; 2020 Jun; 20(3):261-267. PubMed ID: 32073436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evaluation of Minimal Important Difference and Responder Definition in the EORTC QLQ-PAN26 Module for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Surgically Resected Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.
    Reni M; Braverman J; Hendifar A; Li CP; Macarulla T; Oh DY; Riess H; Tempero M; Lu B; Marcus J; Joshi N; Botteman M; Dueck AC
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2021 Nov; 28(12):7545-7554. PubMed ID: 33813673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.