Literature DB >> 10657348

Competing interests and controversy about third generation oral contraceptives. BMJ readers should know whose words they read.

J P Vandenbroucke, F M Helmerhorst, F R Rosendaal.   

Abstract

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10657348      PMCID: PMC1127158     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


× No keyword cloud information.
  5 in total

1.  The third generation oral contraceptive controversy. The evidence shows they are less safe than second generation pills.

Authors:  P A O'Brien
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-25

2.  Commentary. Oral contraceptives and myocardial infarction: reassuring new findings.

Authors:  O Lidegaard
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-06-12

Review 3.  Newer oral contraceptives and the risk of venous thromboembolism.

Authors:  A M Walker
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 4.  175th anniversary lecture. Medical journals and the shaping of medical knowledge.

Authors:  J P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998 Dec 19-26       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  The differential risk of oral contraceptives: the impact of full exposure history.

Authors:  M A Lewis; K D MacRae; D Kühl-Habichl; R Bruppacher; L A Heinemann; W O Spitzer
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.918

  5 in total
  6 in total

1.  Third generation oral contraceptives.

Authors:  D C Skegg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-07-22

2.  Making progress with competing interests.

Authors:  Richard Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-12-14

Review 3.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

Authors:  Joel Lexchin; Lisa A Bero; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Otavio Clark
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-05-31

Review 4.  Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?

Authors:  Su Golder; Yoon K Loke
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-07-31       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 5.  A pathway to improved prospective observational post-authorization safety studies.

Authors:  Victor A Kiri
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2012-09-01       Impact factor: 5.606

6.  Making sense of non-financial competing interests.

Authors: 
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 11.069

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.