Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures.

By G. Guyatt, D. Osoba, A. Wu, K. Wyrwich, G. Norman. Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2002

1,460 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ad725425fb2f9a0372c1ac2434b56315193be69

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. G. Guyatt
2. J. Brożek
3. John P. A. Ioannidis
4. Georgia Salanti
5. K. Thorlund
6. S. Walters
7. D.walaa badawy
8. J. Brazier

In Health

1. S. Walters
2. J. Brazier

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, background): “Anchors must be easily interpretable, widely used and at least moderately correlated with the instrument being explored [8, 32, 33].”
• Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. (2008, methodology): “It is strongly recommended to use multiple independent anchors and to examine and confirm responsiveness across multiple samples [ 22 ,25,28,29,39,40].”
• Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D (2005, methodology): “suggest the use of multiple strategies is likely to enhance the interpretability of any particular instrument [2].”
• Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations (2003, background): “…that can be compared across different conditions and studies; diseasespecific measures assess problems associated with specific conditions that may not be assessed by generic measures and may also be more responsive to the effects of treatment (e.g. Dworkin et al., 2001; Guyatt et al., 1993).”
• GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes. (2013, background): “This second approach, presenting in units of the most familiar instrument, may be the most desirable when the target audiences have extensive experience with that instrument, particularly if the MID is well established [13].”
• Meaningful Change and Responsiveness in Common Physical Performance Measures in Older Adults (2006, background): “control groups who achieve change and calculating the number needed to treat.(23) Finally, sample size estimates are needed in the planning stage of research studies and should be based on ability to detect an important level of change.”