Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Self-Discrepancy Theory02:45

Self-Discrepancy Theory

18.3K
One influential perspective on what motivates people's behavior is detailed in Tory Higgin's self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987). He proposed that people hold disagreeing internal representations of themselves that lead to different emotional states.  
18.3K
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model01:15

Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model

574
The case management model is a multidisciplinary approach that involves healthcare professionals from diverse disciplines, such as physicians, nurses, therapists, social workers, and pharmacists, working collaboratively to address the various needs of patients. Each healthcare professional brings unique expertise and perspectives, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the patient's condition and tailoring treatment plans accordingly.
For example, a patient with a chronic...
574
Methods of Documentation III: PIE01:21

Methods of Documentation III: PIE

1.4K
Problem-intervention-evaluation (PIE) is a systematic approach to documentation used in healthcare settings for clinical decision-making and patient care planning. It is a structured approach to organizing patient data based on problems, interventions, and evaluations. Here's a breakdown of its key features and considerations:
1.4K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Comments on "The equilibrium point hypothesis revisited: why threshold control does not explain human movement" (Mangalam and Stergiou, Exp Brain Res., 2026).

Experimental brain research·2026
Same author

Development and validation of interpretability cutoffs for the short forms of the Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust Personality Questionnaires (BIRT-PQs).

European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine·2025
Same author

Effect of Telerehabilitation in Parkinson Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Physical therapy·2025
Same author

Non-invasive brain stimulation for stroke-related motor impairment and disability: an umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Frontiers in neuroscience·2025
Same author

Push-Off Efficacy in Parkinson's Disease compared to healthy controls and its relationship with step length.

Journal of biomechanics·2025
Same author

Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Intervention on Physical and Psychological Well-Being of Young Adults.

Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 5, 2025

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
06:31

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response

Published on: October 3, 2019

8.7K

Challenges in applying minimal clinically important difference: a critical review.

Joseph Podurgiel1, Daniele Piscitelli, Craig Denegar

  • 1Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Department of Kinesiology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, USA.

International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. Internationale Zeitschrift Fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue Internationale De Recherches De Readaptation
|January 22, 2024
PubMed
Summary

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates lack consistent calculation methods and clear applicability, potentially misrepresenting patient progress. Greater standardization is needed for reliable interpretation of meaningful health changes.

More Related Videos

Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing
06:24

Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing

Published on: May 28, 2013

41.7K
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

7.5K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 5, 2025

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
06:31

Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response

Published on: October 3, 2019

8.7K
Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing
06:24

Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing

Published on: May 28, 2013

41.7K
A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
12:18

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment

Published on: January 11, 2020

7.5K

Area of Science:

  • Rehabilitation Medicine
  • Clinical Outcomes Research

Background:

  • Healthcare clinicians aim to achieve meaningful improvements in patient function and participation.
  • A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) quantifies the smallest change perceived as beneficial by patients.

Approach:

  • This study reviewed MCID calculation methods and their citations across neurologic, orthopedic, and geriatric populations.
  • The review assessed the acknowledgment of calculation methods and patient population similarity in cited MCID values.

Key Points:

  • Significant variation exists in methodologies used to calculate MCID.
  • Cited MCID values often lack transparency regarding calculation methods and applicable patient health conditions.
  • Generalizing MCID values across dissimilar patient groups may lead to erroneous conclusions.

Conclusions:

  • Clinicians and researchers should exercise caution when interpreting MCID values due to methodological inconsistencies and lack of generalizability.
  • A standardized approach for calculating and reporting MCID is essential to ensure the validity of research findings and clinical decision-making.