Literature DB >> 12202336

Peer review of statistics in medical research. Journal reviewers are even more baffled by sample size issues than grant proposal reviewers.

Merrick Zwarenstein.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2002        PMID： 12202336      PMCID： PMC1124007          DOI： 10.1136/bmj.325.7362.491/a

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


× No keyword cloud information.
  3 in total

Review 1.  The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  D G Altman; K F Schulz; D Moher; M Egger; F Davidoff; D Elbourne; P C Gøtzsche; T Lang
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2001-04-17       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials.

Authors:  D Moher; K F Schulz; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-04-14       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Peer review of statistics in medical research: the other problem.

Authors:  Peter Bacchetti
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-05-25
  3 in total
  1 in total

1.  Power is indeed irrelevant in interpreting completed studies.

Authors:  Stephen J Senn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-11-30
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.