CONCLUSIONS Results support a subgroup approach to research, assessment, and treatment of help-seeking individuals.
In attempting to respect the heterogeneity of population preferences in public policy, a subgroup approach of some sort is inevitable.
This iteration could possibly be shown by performing the subgroup approach on the sample split between those patients with and those without the FLT3-ITD: unfortunately, the small number of patients without FLT3-ITD does not allow us to use this variable to illustrate the subgroup analysis.
Mood fluctuators differed more, but neither subgroup approached the responses of the controls (antidepressant, N=6, +1.4%; none, N=2, −0.9%).
The difference between mean predicted and mean observed scores in the NIHSS = 1 5 subgroup approached 0.04 (95%CI:0.00–0.08) – a magnitude of error that could potentially mask between-group or pre-post treatment effects.
Rather, subgroup approaches, such as 'patients like me' [ 4], must instead be considered as 'patients like me with respect to traits that are relevant to my particular medical decision' (for instance, treatment choice).
Subgroups approach problems with diverse experience, cognitive processes, goals, values, and concerns.
The Total Scale Scores across the age subgroups approach or exceed the reliability criterion of 0.90 recommended for analyzing individual patient scale scores.
So far, most subgrouping approaches have been based on unproven theories, are poorly validated or remain, as yet, unreplicated in other studies [ 5].
The majority of the parent proxy-report scales across the age subgroups exceeded the minimum internal consistency reliability standard of 0.70 required for group comparisons, while the Total Scale Scores across the age subgroups approached or exceeded the reliability criterion of 0.90 recommended for analyzing individual patient scale scores.
The majority of the child self-report scales across the age subgroups, including for children as young as 5 years, exceeded the minimum internal consistency reliability standard of 0.70 required for group comparisons, while the Total Scale Scores across the age subgroups approached or exceeded the reliability criterion of 0.90 recommended for analyzing individual patient scale scores.
