Sentence examples for instruments to define from inspiring English sources

Measuring health related quality of life (HRQoL) to construct QALYs can be conducted in a number of ways, including using various 'off the shelf' instruments to define and value an individual's health state (known as health utility) [ 2].

Accordingly, most recent population-based research has used different survey instruments to define the presence of mood and anxiety disorders based on these criteria, either in the form of a categorical diagnosis or as symptom severity levels on a unidimensional scale.

Before 1955, Nebraska did not have an adequate legal instrument to define the state highway system.

We did not use a specific quantified symptom instrument to define symptom recurrence.

It has also been suggested that DAS28 is a useful instrument to define flares [ 5], and that registration of a flare should be followed by treatment intensification [ 3– 6].

8 The MMSE 9 is a widely used instrument to define cognitive impairment and consists of a brief examination including 11 questions.

Given the absence of an assessment instrument to define proper muscle tone of children's pelvic floor, parameters for the male adults will be used [ 28, 29, 36, 43].

Item separation and reliability indices are indicative of the capacity of the instrument to define a unique hierarchy of items along the measured construct [ 28] and values larger than 3 and 0.9, respectively, suggest that the sample is large enough to confirm the item challenge order (on three levels of item challenge) [ 38].

These instruments tend to define satisfaction in this context as a patient's perception of the quality of physicians, access to services, communication with providers and administrative staff, and of the success of their treatment [ 3].

Other sources of high heterogeneity may be differences in instruments used to define the outcome, differences in patient groups (i.e. different stage of cancer, or different timing of the intervention with respect to primary cancer treatment), or differences in control groups.

Although the instruments used to define psychiatric GWAS phenotypes are generally chosen for high reliability, they have no proven biological validity and will therefore (at best) result in a more 'noisy' phenotype definition than most biological tests (Craddock et al. 2008).