When does a Good Practice Statement not justify an Evidence Based Guideline?

Responder analyses of patient important outcomes in RCTs: As part of the movement to move away from the dependence on statistical significance and the difficulty in interpreting continuous scores from multi-item questionnaires and VAS/NRS Scales, the reader of efficacy and effectiveness trials needs to have a 'responder analysis' for the patient-important outcomes to know A] For change scores: (i) the magnitude without an assessment of importance i.e. how many patients actually noticed a small improvement [minimum clinically detectable improvement][e.g. 20% relative], a large improvement [50,70% relative], (ii) how many felt the improvement was truly important to them [Minimal/Major {Clin} Important Difference], and B] achieved a satisfactory 'state' ie Cure, Remission, Low disease state. Crocker et al. assessed this by a systematic review comparing reports from 1980 patients with family members and professionals across physical, mental conditions, intellectual disability in 10 countries using data from the multidimensional, multilingual World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment short-form (the WHOQOL-BREF).