1. <div id="8sgz1"><ol id="8sgz1"></ol></div>

        <em id="8sgz1"><label id="8sgz1"></label></em>
      2. <em id="8sgz1"><label id="8sgz1"></label></em>
        <em id="8sgz1"></em>
        <div id="8sgz1"><ol id="8sgz1"><mark id="8sgz1"></mark></ol></div>

        <button id="8sgz1"></button>
        west china medical publishers
        Author
        • Title
        • Author
        • Keyword
        • Abstract
        Advance search
        Advance search

        Search

        find Author "TANG Tingying" 1 results
        • Definition and application of minimal clinically important difference and minimal important change in functional constipation symptom scales

          ObjectiveTo systematically investigate the application status of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal important change (MIC) in intragroup and intergroup analyses of functional constipation symptom scales from 2000 to 2025, and provide a reference for the standardized formulation of clinical efficacy evaluation criteria for functional constipation in China. MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses on functional constipation were retrieved from WanFang Data, CNKI, PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases between January 1, 2000, and January 7, 2025. Three reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted information on the characteristics of MIC/MCID reported in the studies, and conducted descriptive analyses. ResultsA total of 337 studies were evaluated for readability, with 291 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Among eligible studies, 6 used MIC/MCID thresholds, and 38 reported responder definitions, including 5 using MIC and 1 using MIC and MCID. Discrepancies were observed between the expected and actual values of MIC/MCID. Six included studies provided explicit citation support for their selected MIC/MCID thresholds. ConclusionThe application and interpretation of MIC and MCID thresholds face fundamental challenges. Using functional constipation research as an example, researchers often derive MIC-like thresholds through intergroup comparisons of individual change proportions and mistakenly equate them with MCID. This conceptual confusion may lead to clinical interpretation bias due to neglecting the essential differences between the two thresholds. Additionally, issues include lack of methodological justification for responder analysis, broad threshold ranges, and near-absence of blinded evaluations. It is recommended that researchers clarify the definitions and analytical pathways of the two thresholds during RCT design, avoid misusing intergroup statistics as individual efficacy criteria, and strengthen the methodological rigor of blinded design and threshold validation.

          Release date:2026-02-03 10:44 Export PDF Favorites Scan
        1 pages Previous 1 Next

        Format

        Content

          1. <div id="8sgz1"><ol id="8sgz1"></ol></div>

            <em id="8sgz1"><label id="8sgz1"></label></em>
          2. <em id="8sgz1"><label id="8sgz1"></label></em>
            <em id="8sgz1"></em>
            <div id="8sgz1"><ol id="8sgz1"><mark id="8sgz1"></mark></ol></div>

            <button id="8sgz1"></button>
            欧美人与性动交α欧美精品