@bendean1979 @mikejohansenmd Agree. A binary approach doesn't reflect possible range of perception thresholds. At the low end there may be a 'placebo'-type effect, with stoicism at the upper end. ? Interested to know how to interpret this wide range: mean
@CJFooteMD @BoneJointJ @Stryker_TE @ExeterHipUnit Rounding-up from "mean MID 0.074 (range -0.011-0.140)" to a flat 0.08 in the paper's reference article is not good either https://t.co/tWGHR8BfhT
@docfarrow @CJFooteMD @BoneJointJ not quite 'author defined' - Walters & Brazier report is here https://t.co/v1QyTpqmk6
@CJFooteMD @xlgriffin @OTrauma @OCTRUctu @BoneJointJ @mikereednhs @BoaHandley @BritOrthopaedic @KatyMironov @OxfordBRC "Mean MID for the EQ5D was 0.074 (range -0.011 to 0.140)" 18. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference f