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 *

194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37454099)

  • 1. The anchor design of anchor-based method to determine the minimal clinically important difference: a systematic review.
    Zhang Y; Xi X; Huang Y
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2023 Jul; 21(1):74. PubMed ID: 37454099
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. There are Considerable Inconsistencies Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences in TKA: A Systematic Review.
    Deckey DG; Verhey JT; Gerhart CRB; Christopher ZK; Spangehl MJ; Clarke HD; Bingham JS
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2023 Jan; 481(1):63-80. PubMed ID: 36200846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. What Are the Minimum Clinically Important Differences in SF-36 Scores in Patients with Orthopaedic Oncologic Conditions?
    Ogura K; Yakoub MA; Christ AB; Fujiwara T; Nikolic Z; Boland PJ; Healey JH
    Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2020 Sep; 478(9):2148-2158. PubMed ID: 32568896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Determination of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain, disability, and quality of life after revision fusion for symptomatic pseudoarthrosis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Mendenhall SK; Shau DN; Anderson WN; Cheng JS; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    Spine J; 2012 Dec; 12(12):1122-8. PubMed ID: 23158968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Determination of minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after extension of fusion for adjacent-segment disease.
    Parker SL; Mendenhall SK; Shau D; Adogwa O; Cheng JS; Anderson WN; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2012 Jan; 16(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21962034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article.
    Parker SL; Godil SS; Shau DN; Mendenhall SK; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2013 Feb; 18(2):154-60. PubMed ID: 23176164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales.
    Copay AG; Glassman SD; Subach BR; Berven S; Schuler TC; Carreon LY
    Spine J; 2008; 8(6):968-74. PubMed ID: 18201937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Preoperative Short Form Health Survey Score Is Predictive of Return to Play and Minimal Clinically Important Difference at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
    Nwachukwu BU; Chang B; Voleti PB; Berkanish P; Cohn MR; Altchek DW; Allen AA; Williams RJ
    Am J Sports Med; 2017 Oct; 45(12):2784-2790. PubMed ID: 28727937
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods.
    Mouelhi Y; Jouve E; Castelli C; Gentile S
    Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2020 May; 18(1):136. PubMed ID: 32398083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance.
    Parker SL; Mendenhall SK; Shau DN; Adogwa O; Anderson WN; Devin CJ; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2012 May; 16(5):471-8. PubMed ID: 22324801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Minimum clinically important difference of major patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing decompression surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis.
    Ogura Y; Ogura K; Kobayashi Y; Kitagawa T; Yonezawa Y; Takahashi Y; Yoshida K; Yasuda A; Shinozaki Y; Ogawa J
    Clin Neurol Neurosurg; 2020 Sep; 196():105966. PubMed ID: 32485521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important difference based on anchors and their applications in the quality of life measurement scale QLICP-BR (V2.0) for breast cancer.
    Zhou X; Liu Y; Tan J; Hu L; Chen H; Wan C
    Front Oncol; 2023; 13():1123258. PubMed ID: 37051543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Usefulness of minimum clinically important difference for assessing patients with subaxial degenerative cervical spine disease: statistical versus substantial clinical benefit.
    Auffinger B; Lam S; Shen J; Thaci B; Roitberg BZ
    Acta Neurochir (Wien); 2013 Dec; 155(12):2345-54; discussion 2355. PubMed ID: 24136679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Utility of minimum clinically important difference in assessing pain, disability, and health state after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.
    Parker SL; Adogwa O; Paul AR; Anderson WN; Aaronson O; Cheng JS; McGirt MJ
    J Neurosurg Spine; 2011 May; 14(5):598-604. PubMed ID: 21332281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Minimum clinically important difference of the health-related quality of life scales in adult spinal deformity calculated by latent class analysis: is it appropriate to use the same values for surgical and nonsurgical patients?
    Yuksel S; Ayhan S; Nabiyev V; Domingo-Sabat M; Vila-Casademunt A; Obeid I; Perez-Grueso FS; Acaroglu E;
    Spine J; 2019 Jan; 19(1):71-78. PubMed ID: 30010046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Calculation of the minimal clinically important difference in operated patients with adult spine deformity: advantages of the ROC method and significance of prevalence in threshold selection.
    Larrieu D; Baroncini A; Bourghli A; Pizones J; Kleinstueck FS; Alanay A; Pellisé F; Charles YP; Boissiere L; Obeid I
    Eur Spine J; 2024 Jul; 33(7):2794-2803. PubMed ID: 38842608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Can the minimal clinically important difference be determined in a French-speaking population with primary hip replacement using one PROM item and the Anchor strategy?
    Putman S; Dartus J; Migaud H; Pasquier G; Girard J; Preda C; Duhamel A
    Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2021 May; 107(3):102830. PubMed ID: 33524632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Minimal Clinically Important Differences for American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score in Hallux Valgus Surgery.
    Chan HY; Chen JY; Zainul-Abidin S; Ying H; Koo K; Rikhraj IS
    Foot Ankle Int; 2017 May; 38(5):551-557. PubMed ID: 28193121
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.