Literature DB >> 14703541

The quality of randomised controlled trials may be better than assumed.

Auro del Giglio1, Luciano Jose Costa.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2004        PMID： 14703541      PMCID： PMC313901          DOI： 10.1136/bmj.328.7430.24

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


× No keyword cloud information.
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.

Authors:  A S Detsky; C D Naylor; K O'Rourke; A J McGeer; K A L'Abbé
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?

Authors:  D Moher; B Pham; A Jones; D J Cook; A R Jadad; M Moher; P Tugwell; T P Klassen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-08-22       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials in oncology.

Authors:  J P Pignon; C Hill
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 41.316
  4 in total
  2 in total

1.  Quality of randomised controlled trials: caution is important.

Authors:  Naomi J Brewer
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-31

2.  Quality of randomised controlled trials: quality of research may be worse than it appears.

Authors:  Vasiliy V Vlassov
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-31
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.