Is my patient actually getting better? Application of the McNemar test for demonstrating the change at a single subject level

References

• Bland JM, Altman DG. Measurement error. BMJ. 1996;313:744.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpert DM. Probabilistic models in human sensorimotor control. Hum Mov Sci. 2007;26:511–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haley SM, Fragala-Pinkham MA. Interpreting change scores of tests and measures used in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2006;86:735–743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caronni A, Zaina F, Negrini S. Improving the measurement of health-related quality of life in adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis: the SRS-7, a Rasch-developed short form of the SRS-22 questionnaire. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35:784–799.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. MD State Med J. 1965;14:61–65.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nunnally J, Bernstein I, Berge J. Psychometric theory. Vol. 226. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1967.
   Google Scholar
• Masters ER. The relantionship between number of response categories and reliability of Likert-type questionnaires. J Educ Meas. 1974;11:49–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatchel RJ, Lurie JD, Mayer TG. Minimal clinically important difference. Spine. 2010;35:1739–1743.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liston RA, Brouwer BJ. Reliability and validity of measures obtained from stroke patients using the Balance Master. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77:425–430.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffen T, Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008;88:733–746.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demoulin C, Ostelo R, Knottnerus JA, et al. What factors influence the measurement properties of the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire? Eur J Pain (London, England). 2010;14:200–206.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacs FM, Abraira V, Royuela A, et al. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine. 2007;32:2915–2920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika. 1947;12:153–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman D. Practical statistics for medical research. Chapter 10. London: Chapman & Hall; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Bland JM. Statistics notes: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BMJ. 1995;311:485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine. 1983;8:141–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan S-B, et al. Sample size tables for clinical studies. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than p values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ. 1986;292:746–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swinscow T, Campbell M. Differences between percentages and paired alternatives. Statistics at square one. London: BMJ Books; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Keith RA, Granger CV, Hamilton BB, et al. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehabil. 1987;1:6–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–573.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masters GN. A rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149–174.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schünemann HJ, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu X, Liu J, Tanadini LG, et al. Challenges for defining minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2015;53:84–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT. A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11:171–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samsa G, Edelman D, Rothman ML, et al. Determining clinically important differences in health status measures: a general approach with illustration to the Health Utilities Index Mark II. PharmacoEconomics. 1999;15:141–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–S189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, et al. Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:139–144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? PharmacoEconomics. 2000;18:419–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover WJ, Iman RL. Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat. 2012;35:124–129.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1358–1362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludlow LH, O’leary M. Scoring omitted and not-reached items: practical data analysis implications. Educ Psychol Meas. 1999;59:615–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimmel LA, Elliott JE, Sayer JM, et al. Assessing the reliability and validity of a physical therapy functional measurement tool, the modified Iowa level of assistance scale, in acute hospital inpatients. Phys Ther. 2016;96:176–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langhammer B, Lindmark B. Norwegian General Motor Function assessment as an outcome measure for a frail elderly population: a validity study. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016;16:432–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chansirinukor W, Maher CG, Latimer J, et al. Comparison of the functional rating index and the 18-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire: responsiveness and reliability. Spine. 2005;30:141–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonita R, Beaglehole R. Recovery of motor function after stroke. Stroke. 1988;19:1497–1500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8:1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlin JA. N-of-1 clinical trials should be incorporated into clinical practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:1283–1284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O’Keefe K, et al. Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review. BMJ. 2014;349:g6802. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huitema B. The analysis of covariance and alternatives: statistical methods for experiments, quasi-experiments, and single-case studies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Bunday KL, Perez MA. Motor recovery after spinal cord injury enhanced by strengthening corticospinal synaptic transmission. Curr Biol. 2012;22:2355–2361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firmin L, Field P, Maier MA, et al. Axon diameters and conduction velocities in the macaque pyramidal tract. J Neurophysiol. 2014;112:1229–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulvaney CA, Smith S, Watson MC, et al. Cycling infrastructure for reducing cycling injuries in cyclists. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12:CD010415. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010415.pub2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar