JaeschkeRSingerJGuyattGH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–15.
2.
GuyattGHOsobaDWuAWWyrwichKWNormanGR; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–83.
3.
BeatonDEBoersMWellsGA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002;14:109–14.
4.
BarrettBBrownDMundtMBrownR. Sufficiently important difference: expanding the framework of clinical significance. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:250–61.
5.
BarrettBBrownRMundtM. Using benefit-harm tradeoffs to estimate sufficiently important difference: the case of the common cold. Med Decis Making. 2005;25:47–55.
6.
BarrettBHarahanBBrownDZhangZBrownR. Sufficiently important difference for common cold: severity reduction. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:216–23.
7.
BarrettBEndrizziSAndreoliPBarlowSZhangZ. Clinical significance of common cold treatment: professionals’ opinions. Wis Med J. 2007;106:473–80.
8.
FerreiraMLFerreiraPHHerbertRDLatimerJ. People with low back pain typically need to feel “much better” to consider intervention worthwhile: an observational study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55:123–7.
9.
FischoffBBrewerNTDownsJS. Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based Users Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration;2011.
10.
Cochrane’s legacy. Lancet. 1992;340:1131–2.
11.
GuyattGHKirshnerBJaeschkeR. Measuring health status: what are the necessary measurement properties?J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:1341–5.
12.
SackettDLRosenbergWMGrayJAHaynesRBRichardsonWS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Br Med J. 1996;312:71–2.
13.
GuyattGHRennieD. Users’ Guides to the Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. Chicago, IL: AMA Press;2002.
14.
SackettDLStrausSERichardsonWSRosenbergWHaynesRB. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Edinburgh, London, New York: Churchill Livingstone;2000.
15.
SedrakyanAShihC. Improving depiction of benefits and harms: analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Med Care. 2007;45:S23–S28.
16.
KaptchukTJ. The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial: gold standard or golden calf?J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:541–9.
17.
ShaughnessyAFSlawsonDC. POEMs: patient-oriented evidence that matters. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:667.
18.
WunderinkRG. Surrogate markers and microbiologic end points. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(Suppl 1):S126–30.
19.
TurnerDSchunemannHJGriffithLE. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:28–36.
20.
IoannidisJP. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294:218–28.
21.
BarrettB. Evidence, values, guidelines and rational decision-making. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;27:238–40.
22.
TashakkoriATeddleC. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2003.
23.
TverskyAKahnemanD. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211:453–8.
24.
WeinsteinND. Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science. 1989;246:1232–3.
25.
ThalerRHSunnsteinCR. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press;2008.
26.
GigerenzerGEdwardsA. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Br Med J. 2003;327:741–4.
27.
PetersE. Theoretical mechanisms of numeracy in decision making. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33:S8.
28.
WoloshinSSchwartzLMMoncurMGabrielSTostesonAN. Assessing values for health: numeracy matters. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:382–90.
29.
CroswellJMKramerBSKreimerAR. Cumulative incidence of false-positive results in repeated, multimodal cancer screening. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7:212–22.
30.
LinKLipsitzRMillerTJanakiramanS. Benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: an evidence update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:192–9.
31.
WarrenJLKlabundeCNMariottoAB. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:849–57, W152.
32.
WoloshinSSchwartzLM. The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA. 2010;303:164–5.
33.
BaigentCKeechAKearneyPM. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366:1267–78.
34.
BergerJSBrownDLBeckerRC. Low-dose aspirin in patients with stable cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2008;121:43–9.
35.
RayKKSeshasaiSRWijesuriyaS. Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2009;373:1765–72.
