Literature DB >> 20494813

Clinical practice guidelines versus systematic reviews; which serve as the best basis for evidence-based spine medicine?

Michael D Freeman1.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2010        PMID： 20494813     DOI： 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.04.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN： 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


× No keyword cloud information.
  3 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice guidelines to inform evidence-based clinical practice.

Authors:  J Stuart Wolf; Heddy Hubbard; Martha M Faraday; John B Forrest
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-02-18       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Changing values, changing outcomes: the influence of reprioritization response shift on outcome assessment after spine surgery.

Authors:  Carolyn E Schwartz; Tolulope T Sajobi; Lisa M Lix; Brian R Quaranto; Joel A Finkelstein
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 3.  Incomplete reporting of baseline characteristics in clinical trials: an analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews involving patients with chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Maria M Wertli; Manuela Schöb; Florian Brunner; Johann Steurer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 3.240
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.