Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.
By A. Copay, B. Subach, S. Glassman, D. Polly, T. Schuler. The spine journal, 2007
1,569 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Surgery
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/006a1c2970cd9ca9952637dad96ce85500e90600
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- C. Castelli
- E. Jouve
- S. Gentile
- Y. Mouelhi
Citations in the corpus
- How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods (2020, methodology): “Changes in Performance Status (PS), in particular the KPS and the WHO PS, were chosen by authors because of accessibility and interpretability [25].”
- Sample Size Justification (2021, neutral): “…see Cook et al. (2014) and Keefe et al. (2013), for reviews of different methods to determine a smallest effect size of interest, see King (2011) and Copay, Subach, Glassman, Polly, and Schuler (2007), and for a discussion focused on psychological research, see Lakens, Scheel, et al. (2018).”