Thompson MS. Decision-analytic determination of study size. The case of electronic fetal monitoring. Med Decis Making. 1981;1(2):165-179.
2.
Cappelleri JC, Trochim WM. Ethical and scientific features of cutoff-based designs of clinical trials: a simulation study. Med Decis Making. 1995;15(4):387-394.
3.
Sanders GD, Nease RF Jr, Owens DK. Design and pilot evaluation of a system to develop computer-based site-specific practice guidelines from decision models. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(2):145-159.
4.
Hilden J.Reporting clinical trials from the viewpoint of a patient’s choice of treatment. Stat Med. 1987;6:745-752.
5.
Barrett B, Brown D, Mundt M, Brown R.Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(3):250-261.
6.
Lehmann HP, Goodman SN. Bayesian communication: a clinically significant paradigm for electronic publication. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7(3):254-266.
7.
DeBaun MR. Silent Cerebral Infarct Multi-Center Clinical Trial. NIH Grant 1U01NS042804-01A1, 2003. Available from: http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp
8.
Sinclair JC, Cook RJ, Guyatt GH, Pauker SG, Cook DJ. When should an effective treatment be used? Derivation of the threshold number needed to treat and the minimum event rate for treatment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(3):253-262.
9.
Djulbegovic B, Hozo I, Lyman GH. Linking evidence-based medicine therapeutic summary measures to clinical decision analysis. Med Gen Med. 200013;2(1):E6.
10.
Angell M.The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House; 2004.
11.
Avorn J.Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Cots, of Prescription Drugs. New York: Knopf; 2004.
12.
Nease RF Jr, Kneeland T, O’Connor GT, et al.Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team. JAMA. 1995;273(15):1185-1190.
13.
Jansen SJ, Stiggelbout AM, Wakker PP, et al.Patients’ utilities for cancer treatments: a study of the chained procedure for the standard gamble and time tradeoff. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(4):391-399.
14.
Oliver A.Testing the internal consistency of the lottery equivalents method using health outcomes. Health Econ. 2005;14(2):149-159; discussion 161-167.
15.
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 2001.
16.
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Health Information Technology Strategic Framework. Washington, DC: Health and Human Services; 2004. Available from: http://www.os.dhhs.gov/healthit/documents/hitframework.pdf
