It is time to develop appropriate tools for assessing minimal clinically important differences, performance bias and quality of evidence in reviews of behavioral interventions

Sean Grant, Eric R. Pedersen, Karen Chan Osilla, Magdalena Kulesza, Elizabeth J. D’Amico

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

We advocate for the field to define minimal clinically important differences that reflect the perspectives and values of various stakeholders in alcohol intervention research. We also need rigorous risk of bias and quality of evidence assessment tools that are appropriately tailored to behavioral interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1533-1535
Number of pages3
JournalAddiction
Volume111
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Alcohols
Research
Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Keywords

  • Brief intervention
  • Cochrane
  • Effect size
  • GRADE approach
  • Minimal clinically important difference
  • Motivational interviewing
  • Risk of bias
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

It is time to develop appropriate tools for assessing minimal clinically important differences, performance bias and quality of evidence in reviews of behavioral interventions. / Grant, Sean; Pedersen, Eric R.; Osilla, Karen Chan; Kulesza, Magdalena; D’Amico, Elizabeth J.

In: Addiction, Vol. 111, No. 9, 01.01.2016, p. 1533-1535.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Grant, Sean ; Pedersen, Eric R. ; Osilla, Karen Chan ; Kulesza, Magdalena ; D’Amico, Elizabeth J. / It is time to develop appropriate tools for assessing minimal clinically important differences, performance bias and quality of evidence in reviews of behavioral interventions. In: Addiction. 2016 ; Vol. 111, No. 9. pp. 1533-1535.
@article{e1f9c68edbee4343a4cd2a72d516b683,
title = "It is time to develop appropriate tools for assessing minimal clinically important differences, performance bias and quality of evidence in reviews of behavioral interventions",
abstract = "We advocate for the field to define minimal clinically important differences that reflect the perspectives and values of various stakeholders in alcohol intervention research. We also need rigorous risk of bias and quality of evidence assessment tools that are appropriately tailored to behavioral interventions.",
keywords = "Brief intervention, Cochrane, Effect size, GRADE approach, Minimal clinically important difference, Motivational interviewing, Risk of bias, Systematic review",
author = "Sean Grant and Pedersen, {Eric R.} and Osilla, {Karen Chan} and Magdalena Kulesza and D’Amico, {Elizabeth J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/add.13380",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "111",
pages = "1533--1535",
journal = "Addiction",
issn = "0965-2140",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - It is time to develop appropriate tools for assessing minimal clinically important differences, performance bias and quality of evidence in reviews of behavioral interventions

AU - Grant, Sean

AU - Pedersen, Eric R.

AU - Osilla, Karen Chan

AU - Kulesza, Magdalena

AU - D’Amico, Elizabeth J.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - We advocate for the field to define minimal clinically important differences that reflect the perspectives and values of various stakeholders in alcohol intervention research. We also need rigorous risk of bias and quality of evidence assessment tools that are appropriately tailored to behavioral interventions.

AB - We advocate for the field to define minimal clinically important differences that reflect the perspectives and values of various stakeholders in alcohol intervention research. We also need rigorous risk of bias and quality of evidence assessment tools that are appropriately tailored to behavioral interventions.

KW - Brief intervention

KW - Cochrane

KW - Effect size

KW - GRADE approach

KW - Minimal clinically important difference

KW - Motivational interviewing

KW - Risk of bias

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84964339303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84964339303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/add.13380

DO - 10.1111/add.13380

M3 - Review article

C2 - 27095296

AN - SCOPUS:84964339303

VL - 111

SP - 1533

EP - 1535

JO - Addiction

JF - Addiction

SN - 0965-2140

IS - 9

ER -