The need to show minimum clinically important differences in Alzheimer's disease trials
Authors:
- 1 November 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier in The Lancet Psychiatry
- Vol. 8 (11) , 1013-1016
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
Funding Information
- Biogen
- Idaho Beef Council
- Medical Research Council (MR/S021418/1)
- Novartis
This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interpreting Change in Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome InstrumentsTherapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2016
- Phase 3 Trials of Solanezumab for Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2014
- Regulatory Innovation and Drug Development for Early-Stage Alzheimer's DiseaseNew England Journal of Medicine, 2013
- Using Effect Size—or Why the P Value Is Not EnoughJournal of Graduate Medical Education, 2012
- What is the clinically relevant change on the ADAS-Cog?Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 2011
- Determining the minimum clinically important differences for outcomes in the DOMINO trialInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2010
- The Death Knoll for the MMSE: Has It Outlived Its Purpose?Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 2010
- A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine on cognition, quality of life and adverse events in Alzheimer's diseaseInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 2005
- The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)Neurology, 1993
- Measurement of health statusControlled Clinical Trials, 1989