The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 4 , Pages 283-284, April 2010

The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”

  • Eugene J. Carragee, MD (Editor-in-Chief)

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford Medicine Outpatient Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, 450 Broadway St, Pavilion C-MC 6342, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA. Tel.: (650) 723-7797; fax: (650) 723-9805.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Stanford Medicine Outpatient Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, 450 Broadway St, Pavilion C – MC 6342, Redwood City, CA 94063, USA

Received 4 February 2010; accepted 6 February 2010.

No abstract is available. To read the body of this article, please view the Full Text online.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 FDA device/drug status: not applicable.

 Author disclosures: EJC (stock ownership, including options and warrants, Simpirica, Bioassetts, Cytonics; private investments, including venture capital, start-ups, Simpirica; consulting, Medtronic, Synthes, Well-Point B/C B/S; trips/travel, US army; scientific advisory board, Intrinsic Orthopedics, Cytonics; other office, Bioassetts; grants, AO Foundation; fellowship support, DePuy Spine; other relationships, Orthopaedic Surgeon).

PII: S1529-9430(10)00117-8

doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.02.013

The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 4 , Pages 283-284, April 2010

Article Tools