Is it time to define minimally clinically important differences for patient-reported outcome measures used in alcohol brief intervention studies?
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reviewing and interpreting the effects of brief alcohol interventions: comment on a Cochrane review about motivational interviewing for young adultsAddiction, 2015
- Motivational interviewing for alcohol misuse in young adults2014
- A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methodsExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 2011
- The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important differenceJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methodsThe Spine Journal, 2007
- Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approachQuality of Life Research, 2006
- Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important changeHealth and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2006
- Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status MeasuresMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2002
- Measuring change over time: Assessing the usefulness of evaluative instrumentsJournal of Chronic Diseases, 1987