1. Laible C, Stein DA, Kiridly DN. Meniscal repair. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21(4):204-213.
2. Sgaglione NA, Steadman JR, Shaffer B, Miller MD, Fu FH. Current concepts in meniscus surgery: resection to replacement. Arthroscopy. 2003;19 Suppl 1:161-188.
3. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(8):622-629.
4. Cleland JA, Whitman JM, Houser JL, Wainner RS, Childs JD. Psychometric properties of selected tests in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis. Spine J. 2012;12(10):921-931.
5. Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD. Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(5):459-468.
6. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DL. Health status measures: strategies and analytic methods for assessing change scores. Phys Ther. 1996;76(10):1109-1123.
7. Kirkley A, Griffin S, Whelan D. The development and validation of a quality of life-measurement tool for patients with meniscal pathology: the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Clin J Sport Med. 2007;17(5):349-356.
8. Sihvonen R, Jarvela T, Aho H, Jarvinen TL. Validation of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) for patients with a degenerative meniscal tear: a meniscal pathology-specific quality-of-life index. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(10):e65.
9. Tanner SM, Dainty KN, Marx RG, Kirkley A. Knee-specific quality-of-life instruments: which ones measure symptoms and disabilities most important to patients? Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(9):1450-1458.
10. ebrahimi N JS, Salsabili N. translation and cultural adaptationt reliability and validity study of the persian version of the western ontariomeniscal evaluation tool questionaire in iranian patients with isolated meniscal tears Tehran University of Medical Sciences
School of Rehabilitation; 2016.
11. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36.
12. de Yebenes Prous MJ, Rodriguez Salvanes F, Carmona Ortells L. [Responsiveness of outcome measures]. Reumatol Clin. 2008;4(6):240-247.
13. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(2):171-178.
14. van der Wal RJP, Heemskerk BTJ, van Arkel ERA, Mokkink LB, Thomassen BJW. Translation and Validation of the Dutch Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool. J Knee Surg. 2017;30(4):314-322.
15. Salavati M, Mazaheri M, Negahban H, et al. Validation of a Persian-version of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in Iranians with knee injuries. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(10):1178-1182.
16. H T. Reporting improvement from patient-reported outcome measures. Clin Chiropractic. 2010;13:15-22.
17. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17(3):163-170.
18. de Vet HC, Bouter LM, Bezemer PD, Beurskens AJ. Reproducibility and responsiveness of evaluative outcome measures. Theoretical considerations illustrated by an empirical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(4):479-487.
19. Lehman LA, Velozo CA. Ability to detect change in patient function: responsiveness designs and methods of calculation. J Hand Ther. 2010;23(4):361-370; quiz 371.
20. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.
21. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(10):1567-1573.
22. Lin CW, Moseley AM, Refshauge KM, Bundy AC. The lower extremity functional scale has good clinimetric properties in people with ankle fracture. Phys Ther. 2009;89(6):580-588.
23. Bolton JE. Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(21):2410-2417; discussion 2418.
24. Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15.
25. Alatou ABaD. Precipitation variability on the massif Forest of Mahouna (North Eastern-Algeria)
from 1986 to 2010. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research. 2016;5(3).
26. Negahban H, Mostafaee N, Sohani SM, Hessam M, Tabesh H, Montazeri A. Responsiveness and minimally important differences for selected Persian-version of outcome measures used in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(14):1285-1290.
27. Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(8):869-879.