This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!

Skip to main page content

Add to Collections

Your saved search

Name of saved search:

Search terms:

Test search terms

Would you like email updates of new search results?

Yes
No

Email: (change)

Frequency:

Which day?

Which day?

Report format:

Send at most:

Send even when there aren't any new results

Optional text in email:

Your RSS Feed

Comparative Study

. 1996 Nov;49(11):1223-4.

doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00208-9.

On the debate over methods for estimating the clinically important difference

D A Redelmeier¹, G H Guyatt, R S Goldstein

Affiliations

PMID: 8892488
DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00208-9

Comparative Study

On the debate over methods for estimating the clinically important difference

D A Redelmeier et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov.

. 1996 Nov;49(11):1223-4.

doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00208-9.

Authors

D A Redelmeier¹, G H Guyatt, R S Goldstein

Affiliation

¹ Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PMID: 8892488
DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00208-9

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment on

Assessing the minimal important difference in symptoms: a comparison of two techniques.
Redelmeier DA, Guyatt GH, Goldstein RS. Redelmeier DA, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1215-9. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00206-5. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996. PMID: 8892486
The minimal important difference: who's to say what is important?
Wright JG. Wright JG. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Nov;49(11):1221-2. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00207-7. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996. PMID: 8892487 No abstract available.

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Elsevier Science