« Previous
Next »
The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 4
, Pages 283-284
, April 2010
The rise and fall of the “minimum clinically important difference”
References
- . Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415
- Patient satisfaction after circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine. 2000;25:722–726
- Assessment of spine surgery outcomes: inconsistency of change amongst outcome measurements. Spine J. 2010;10:291–296
- . Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum?. Spine J. 2010;10:321–327
- . Thresholds for Health-related Quality of Life measures: reality testing. Spine J. 2010;10:328–329
- . Testing minimal clinically important difference: additional comments and scientific reality testing. Spine J. 2010;10:330–332
- . Minimum acceptable outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2010;10:313–320
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
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
« Previous
Next »
The Spine Journal
Volume 10, Issue 4
, Pages 283-284
, April 2010
