How do researchers determine the difference to be detected in superiority trials? Results of a survey from a panel of researchers

[1]  G. Guyatt,et al.  World Health Organization strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence (study quality) are frequent and often inconsistent with GRADE guidance. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  The choice of the noninferiority margin in clinical trials was driven by baseline risk, type of primary outcome, and benefits of new treatment. , 2015, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  R. Lewis,et al.  Minimal clinically important difference: defining what really matters to patients. , 2014, JAMA.

[4]  G. Guyatt,et al.  World Health Organization recommendations are often strong based on low confidence in effect estimates. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  M. Barry,et al.  Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  T. Perneger,et al.  Doctors and Patients’ Susceptibility to Framing Bias: A Randomized Trial , 2011, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[8]  T. Perneger,et al.  What differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials , 2010, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  E. Livingston,et al.  Effect size estimation: a necessary component of statistical analysis. , 2009, Archives of surgery.

[11]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Gary Donaldson,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes and the mandate of measurement , 2008, Quality of Life Research.

[13]  Malcolm Man-Son-Hing,et al.  Determination of the clinical importance of study results , 2002, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[14]  U. S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Cen Research,et al.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[15]  David J. Kupfer,et al.  Size of Treatment Effects and Their Importance to Clinical Research and Practice , 2006, Biological Psychiatry.

[16]  P. Neumann,et al.  Do oncologists believe new cancer drugs offer good value? , 2005, The oncologist.

[17]  K. Schulz,et al.  Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical , 2005, The Lancet.

[18]  S. Lange,et al.  Choice of delta: requirements and reality--results of a systematic review. , 2005, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[19]  D. Cook,et al.  When should an effective treatment be used? Derivation of the threshold number needed to treat and the minimum event rate for treatment. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Surveying physicians to determine the minimal important difference: implications for sample-size calculation. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  A. Bowling.  The rationing debate: Rationing healthcare by age , 1997 .

[22]  C. Naylor,et al.  Can there be a more patient-centred approach to determining clinically important effect sizes for randomized treatment trials? , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  D A Redelmeier,et al.  Understanding patients' decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. , 1993, JAMA.

[24]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. , 1989, Controlled clinical trials.