Practical guides to understanding sample size and minimal clinically important difference (MCID)

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Volumn 136, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 14-18

  Neely, J Gail ^a   Karni, Ron J ^a   Engel, Samuel H ^a   Fraley, Patrick L ^a   Nussenbaum, Brian ^a   Paniello, Randal C ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CALCULATION; CAUTERIZATION; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION; REVIEW; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; STUDENT T TEST; TONSILLECTOMY;

HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICS;

EID: 33845950977     PISSN: 01945998     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.otohns.2006.11.001     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Wasserman J.M., Wynn R., Bash T., et al. Levels of evidence in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 134 (2006) 717-723
2. Peng P., Wasserman J., and Rosenfeld R. Factors influencing publication of abstracts presented at the AAO-HNS Annual Meeting. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135 (2006) 197-203
3. Karri V. Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: survey of output and quality of reporting. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 59 (2006) 787-796
4. Bhattacharyya N. Peer review: studying the major otolaryngology journals. Laryngoscope 109 (1999) 640-644
5. Noordzij J., and Affleck B. Coblation versus unipolar electrocautery tonsillectomy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study in adult patients. Laryngoscope 116 (2006) 1303-1309
6. Norman G., Sloan J., and Wyrwich K. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41 (2003) 582-592