Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The size of the treatment effect: do patients and proxies agree?

By Femke AH van der Linden, Jolijn J Kragt, Jeremy C Hobart, Martin Klein, Alan J Thompson, Henk M van der Ploeg, Chris H Polman and Bernard MJ Uitdehaag
Topics: Research Article
Publisher: BioMed Central
OAI identifier: oai:pubmedcentral.nih.gov:2667429
Provided by: PubMed Central
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g... (external link)
  • Suggested articles

    Citations

    1. (2001). A: The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain
    2. (2005). AJ: How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales.
    3. (2004). AJ: Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Assess
    4. (2001). AJ: Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example.
    5. (1990). Altman DG: A note on the use of the intraclass correlation coefficient in the evaluation of agreement between two methods of measurement. Comput Biol Med
    6. (1986). Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet
    7. (1996). Depression and multiple sclerosis. Neurology
    8. (2008). et al.: Longitudinal proxy measurements in multiple sclerosis: patient-proxy agreement on the impact of MS on daily life over a period of two years.
    9. (2006). et al.: Proxy measurements in multiple sclerosis: agreement between patients and their partners on the impact of multiple sclerosis in daily life.
    10. (1991). F: Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology
    11. (2007). Feinstein A: Anxiety disorders and their clinical correlates in multiple sclerosis patients. Mult Scler
    12. (2000). Gladman DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations.
    13. (1994). IH: Psychometric theory 3rd edition.
    14. (2005). Knight SJ: Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Med Care
    15. (2002). LE: A critical look at transition ratings.
    16. (1987). Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.
    17. (2007). Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distributionbased approach. Qual Life Res
    18. (1992). NK: The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: a review. J Clin Epidemiol
    19. (1989). Ong CN: Statistical evaluation of agreement between two methods for measuring a quantitative variable. Comput Biol Med
    20. (2003). Polman CH: One year changes in disability in multiple sclerosis: neurological examination compared with patient self report.
    21. (2006). Portaccio E: Multiple sclerosis-related cognitive changes: a review of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
    22. (1997). Regehr G: Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.
    23. (1996). Reingold SC: Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis: results of an international survey.
    24. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychol Rev
    25. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
    26. (2007). The patient knows best: significant change in the physical component of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29 physical).
    27. (1996). Wong SP: Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.