Trang chủ

Tài liệu nghiên cứu Y học

Search Journal

Search Article

Search by Auth

Category

From

To

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

1. Cover 2 Editorial Board

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

2. Table of Contents

Tác giả

3. Should the cost perspective be integrated in clinical guidelines?: On individual and societal perspectives in health research

Tác giả

J. André Knottnerus, Peter Tugwell.

3. Confounding obscures our view, effect modification is part of reality

Tác giả

J. André Knottnerus, Peter Tugwell.

3. Trial recruitment a continuing challenge

Tác giả

Peter Tugwell, Andre Knottnerus.

3. Comprehensive evidence and clinical judgment

Tác giả

J. André Knottnerus, Peter Tugwell.

3. Should the fragility index be routinely reported for systematic reviews?

Tác giả

Peter Tugwell, Andre Knottnerus.

3. Can university medical center trial investigators do more to ensure timely publication of clinical trial results?

Tác giả

3. Inadequate comparators produce misleading results – the importance of good comparison practice

Tác giả

J. André Knottnerus, Peter Tugwell.

3. Need for greater transparency in documenting informed consent

Tác giả

Peter Tugwell, J. Andre Knottnerus.

3. Research without good questions is a waste

Tác giả

J. Andre Knottnerus, Peter Tugwell.

3. Stepped wedge designs are coming of age in clinical epidemiology

Tác giả

Peter Tugwell, J. André Knottnerus.

3. Noblesse oblige: critical issues at the highest level of clinical evidence

Tác giả

J. André Knottnerus, Peter Tugwell.

3. Multimorbidity and Comorbidity are now separate MESH headings

Tác giả

Peter Tugwell, J. André Knottnerus.

4. Publication bias may exist among prognostic accuracy studies of middle cerebral artery Doppler ultrasound

Tác giả

Charlotte A. Vollgraff Heidweiller-Schreurs, Daniël A. Korevaar, Ben Willem J. Mol, Caroline J. Bax, Patrick M.M. Bossuyt.

4. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive—a meta-epidemiological study

Tác giả

Thijs M. Koster, Jørn Wetterslev, Christian Gluud, Janus C. Jakobsen, Eric Keus.

4. Characteristics and methods of incorporating randomized and nonrandomized evidence in network meta-analyses: a scoping review

Tác giả

Kathryn Zhang, Paul Arora, Neha Sati, Audrey Béliveau, Andrea C. Tricco.

4. Video strategies improved health professional knowledge across different contexts: a helix counterbalanced randomized controlled study

Tác giả

Mitchell N. Sarkies, Stephen Maloney, Mark Symmons, Terry P. Haines.

4. Forcing dichotomous disease classification from reference standards leads to bias in diagnostic accuracy estimates: A simulation study

Tác giả

Kevin Jenniskens, Christiana A. Naaktgeboren, Johannes B. Reitsma, Lotty Hooft, Maarten van Smeden.

4. Development of the summary of findings table for network meta-analysis

Tác giả

Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Shelly-Anne Li, Gordon Guyatt, Susan M. Jack, Holger J. Schünemann.

4. A scoping review provided a framework for new ways of doing research through mobilizing collective intelligence

Tác giả

Van Thu Nguyen, Mehdi Benchoufi, Bridget Young, Lina Ghosn, ... Isabelle Boutron.

4. Model-based economic evaluations of diagnostic point of care tests were rarely fit for purpose

Tác giả

Katie Breheny, Andrew J. Sutton, Jonathan J. Deeks.

4. Methodological review showed correct absolute effect size estimates for time-to-event outcomes in less than one-third of cancer-related systematic reviews

Tác giả

Nicole Skoetz, Marius Goldkuhle, Aaron Weigl, Kerry Dwan, ... Elvira C. van Dalen.

4. The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations

Tác giả

Chang Xu, Yu Liu, Peng-Li Jia, Ling Li, ... Xin Sun.

4. Tailored meta-analysis: an investigation of the correlation between the test positive rate and prevalence

Tác giả

Brian H. Willis, Dyuti Coomar, Mohammed Baragilly.

4. Lack of transparency in reporting narrative synthesis of quantitative data: a methodological assessment of systematic reviews

Tác giả

Mhairi Campbell, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Amanda Sowden, Hilary Thomson.

5. A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers

Tác giả

Mona Ghannad, Maria Olsen, Isabelle Boutron, Patrick M. Bossuyt.

5. Psychometric evaluation supported construct validity, temporal stability, and responsiveness of the Osteoarthritis Questionnaire

Tác giả

Ljoudmila Busija, Richard H. Osborne, Gemma Tatangelo, Silvana Niutta, Rachelle Buchbinder.

5. Harms are assessed inconsistently and reported inadequately Part 2: nonsystematic adverse events

Tác giả

Evan Mayo-Wilson, Nicole Fusco, Tianjing Li, Hwanhee Hong, Swaroop Vedula.

5. Established search filters may miss studies when identifying randomized controlled trials

Tác giả

Chris Cooper, Jo Varley-Campbell, Patrice Carter.

5. The number needed to treat in pairwise and network meta-analysis and its graphical representation

Tác giả

Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Ralf Bender, Paul Glasziou, Sharon E. Straus, Andrea C. Tricco.

5. A systematic review of core outcome set development studies demonstrates difficulties in defining unique outcomes

Tác giả

Amber E. Young, Sara T. Brookes, Kerry N.L. Avery, Anna Davies, Jane M. Blazeby.

5. A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models

Tác giả

Evangelia Christodoulou, Jie Ma, Gary S. Collins, Ewout W. Steyerberg, ... Ben Van Calster.

5. The trajectory of balance skill development from childhood to adolescence was influenced by birthweight: a latent transition analysis in a British birth cohort

Tác giả

Paola Matiko Martins Okuda, Walter Swardfager, Patrícia Silva Lucio, George B. Ploubidis, ... Hugo Cogo-Moreira.

5. Living network meta-analysis was feasible when considering the pace of evidence generation

Tác giả

Perrine Créquit, Tania Martin-Montoya, Nassima Attiche, Ludovic Trinquart, ... Philippe Ravaud.

5. Marginal structural models and other analyses allow multiple estimates of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials: Meta-epidemiological analysis

Tác giả

Hannah Ewald, Benjamin Speich, Aviv Ladanie, Heiner C. Bucher, ... Lars G. Hemkens.

5. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance

Tác giả

Ivana Propadalo, Mia Tranfic, Ivana Vuka, Ognjen Barcot, ... Livia Puljak.

5. A Web-based survey among adults aged 40–54 years was time effective and yielded stable response patterns

Tác giả

Korbinian Weigl, Kaja Tikk, Michael Hoffmeister, Enrico N. De Toni, ... Hermann Brenner.

6. Study characteristics impacted the pragmatism of randomized controlled trial published in nursing: a meta-epidemiological study

Tác giả

Flora Devos, Frantz Foissac, Naim Bouazza, Pierre-Yves Ancel, Hélène Chappuy.

6. Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR)

Tác giả

Abdullah Pandor, Eva Kaltenthaler, Marrissa Martyn-St James, Ruth Wong, Andrew Booth.

6. Harms are assessed inconsistently and reported inadequately part 1: systematic adverse events

Tác giả

Evan Mayo-Wilson, Nicole Fusco, Tianjing Li, Hwanhee Hong, Swaroop Vedula.

6. Expert panel diagnosis demonstrated high reproducibility as reference standard in infectious diseases

Tác giả

Chantal B. van Houten, Christiana A. Naaktgeboren, Liat Ashkenazi-Hoffnung, Shai Ashkenazi, Louis J. Bont.

6. Delphi procedure in core outcome set development: rating scale and consensus criteria determined outcome selection

Tác giả

Dorien De Meyer, Jan Kottner, Hilde Beele, Jochen Schmitt, Dimitri Beeckman.

6. Statistical significance did not affect time to publication in non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a metaepidemiological study

Tác giả

Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yusuke Tsutsumi, Yuki Kataoka, Hiraku Tsujimoto, Toshi A. Furukawa.

6. Structured decision-making drives guidelines panels' recommendations “for” but not “against” health interventions

Tác giả

Benjamin Djulbegovic, Tea Reljic, Shira Elqayam, Adam Cuker, ... Gordon Guyatt.

6. The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study

Tác giả

Peijing Yan, Liang Yao, Huijuan Li, Min Zhang, ... Kehu Yang.

6. Justification and reporting of subgroup analyses were lacking or inadequate in randomized controlled trials

Tác giả

Jingchun Fan, Fujian Song, Max O. Bachmann.

6. Randomized trials involving surgery did not routinely report considerations of learning and clustering effects

Tác giả

Elizabeth J. Conroy, Anna Rosala-Hallas, Jane M. Blazeby, Girvan Burnside, ... Carrol Gamble.

6. Potentially missing data are considerably more frequent than definitely missing data: a methodological survey of 638 randomized controlled trials

Tác giả

Lara A. Kahale, Batoul Diab, Assem M. Khamis, Yaping Chang, ... Elie A. Akl.

6. Modeling missing binary outcome data while preserving transitivity assumption yielded more credible network meta-analysis results

Tác giả

Loukia M. Spineli.

7. Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines

Tác giả

Melissa K. Sharp, Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Roser Rius, Elizabeth Wager, Darko Hren.

7. Estimated legacy effects from simulated post-trial data were less biased than from combined trial/post-trial data

Tác giả

Lin Zhu, Katy J.L. Bell, Andrew Hayen.

7. Funders improved the management of learning and clustering effects through design and analysis of randomized trials involving surgery

Tác giả

Elizabeth J. Conroy, Anna Rosala-Hallas, Jane M. Blazeby, Girvan Burnside, Carrol Gamble.

7. Risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions showed low inter-rater reliability and challenges in its application

Tác giả

Silvia Minozzi, Michela Cinquini, Silvia Gianola, Greta Castellini, Rita Banzi.

7. The statistical significance of meta-analyses is frequently fragile: definition of a fragility index for meta-analyses

Tác giả

Ignacio Atal, Raphaël Porcher, Isabelle Boutron, Philippe Ravaud.

7. Registration of methodological studies, that is, “research-on-research” studies—should it be mandatory?

Tác giả

Livia Puljak, Dawid Pieper.

7. Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained

Tác giả

Nadja Koensgen, Tanja Rombey, Katharina Allers, Tim Mathes, ... Dawid Pieper.

7. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

Tác giả

Iain J. Marshall, Rachel Marshall, Byron C. Wallace, Jon Brassey, James Thomas.

7. Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies

Tác giả

Dawid Pieper, Livia Puljak, Marien González-Lorenzo, Silvia Minozzi.

7. Generalizability of findings from randomized controlled trials is limited in the leading general medical journals

Tác giả

Antti Malmivaara.

7. Comparison of alternative falls data collection methods in the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT)

Tác giả

James Griffin, Ranjit Lall, Julie Bruce, Emma Withers, ... Henry Adjei.

7. SMOOTH: Self-Management of Open Online Trials in Health analysis found improvements were needed for reporting methods of internet-based trials

Tác giả

Amy Price, Lenny Vasanthan, Mike Clarke, Su May Liew, ... Amanda Burls.

8. Poor quality patient reported outcome measures bias effect estimates in orthopaedic randomized studies

Tác giả

Joel J. Gagnier, Bradley C. Johnston.

8. Development of practical recommendations for diagnostic accuracy studies in low-prevalence situations

Tác giả

Gea A. Holtman, Marjolein Y. Berger, Huibert Burger, Jonathan J. Deeks, Ann Van den Bruel.

8. Overview: comprehensive and carefully constructed strategies are required when conducting searches for adverse effects data

Tác giả

Su Golder, Guy Peryer, Yoon K. Loke.

8. Improvement was needed in the standards of development for cancer core outcome sets

Tác giả

Elizabeth Gargon, Paula R. Williamson, Jane M. Blazeby, Jamie J. Kirkham.

8. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey

Tác giả

Edita Runjic, Dalibora Behmen, Dawid Pieper, Tim Mathes, Livia Puljak.

8. Result dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers was delayed and incomplete

Tác giả

Susanne Wieschowski, Nico Riedel, Katharina Wollmann, Hannes Kahrass, Daniel Strech.

8. The risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates can be estimated by learning from a database of published examples

Tác giả

Rabia Bashir, Didi Surian, Adam G. Dunn.

8. Medical diagnoses showed low relatedness in an explorative mutual information analysis of 190,837 inpatient cases

Tác giả

Jan A. Roth, Thomas Sakoparnig, Simon Neubauer, Eleonore Kuenzel-Pawlik, ... Andreas F. Widmer.

8. Racial/ethnic disparities in disease burden and costs related to exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the United States: an exploratory analysis

Tác giả

Teresa M. Attina, Julia Malits, Mrudula Naidu, Leonardo Trasande.

8. A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

Tác giả

Melissa K. Sharp, Ružica Tokalić, Guadalupe Gómez, Elizabeth Wager, ... Darko Hren.

8. Borrowing of strength from indirect evidence in 40 network meta-analyses

Tác giả

Lifeng Lin, Aiwen Xing, Michael J. Kofler, Mohammad Hassan Murad.

8. The transitional risk and incident questionnaire was valid and reliable for measuring transitional patient safety from the patients' perspective

Tác giả

Marije A. van Melle, Henk F. van Stel, Judith M. Poldervaart, Niek J. de Wit, Dorien L.M. Zwart.

9. New evidence for concern over the risk of birth defects from medications for nausea and vomitting of pregnancy

Tác giả

Anick Bérard, Odile Sheehy, Jessica Gorgui, Jin-Ping Zhao, Sasha Bernatsky.

9. Single pivotal trials with few corroborating characteristics were used for FDA approval of cancer therapies

Tác giả

Aviv Ladanie, Benjamin Speich, Matthias Briel, Francesco Sclafani, Lars G. Hemkens.

9. Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review

Tác giả

Derya Çelik, Özge Çoban, Önder Kılıçoğlu.

9. Telephone call reminders did not increase screening uptake more than SMS reminders: a recruitment study within a trial

Tác giả

Karen Bracken, Anthony Keech, Wendy Hague, Adrienne Kirby, Gary Wittert.

9. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study

Tác giả

Quan Nha Hong, Pierre Pluye, Sergi Fàbregues, Gillian Bartlett, Isabelle Vedel.

9. Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA

Tác giả

Victoria Leclercq, Charlotte Beaudart, Sara Ajamieh, Véronique Rabenda, Olivier Bruyère.

9. Rounding, but not randomization method, non-normality, or correlation, affected baseline P-value distributions in randomized trials

Tác giả

Mark J. Bolland, Greg D. Gamble, Alison Avenell, Andrew Grey.

9. Different evidence summaries have implications for contextualizing findings of meta-analysis of diagnostic tests

Tác giả

Anja Zgodic, Christopher H. Schmid, Ingram Olkin, Thomas A. Trikalinos.

9. A systematic review finds inconsistency in the measures used to estimate adherence and persistence to multiple cardiometabolic medications

Tác giả

Sofa D. Alfian, Ivan S. Pradipta, Eelko Hak, Petra Denig.

9. Stratification by quality induced selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Tác giả

Jennifer Stone, Usha Gurunathan, Kathryn Glass, Zachary Munn, ... Suhail A.R. Doi.

9. Increased risks for random errors are common in outcomes graded as high certainty of evidence

Tác giả

Gerald Gartlehner, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Gernot Wagner, Sheila Patel, ... Christian Gluud.

9. A review of NICE appraisals of pharmaceuticals 2000–2016 found variation in establishing comparative clinical effectiveness

Tác giả

Michael Anderson, Huseyin Naci, Deborah Morrison, Leeza Osipenko, Elias Mossialos.

10. Baseline health status and setting impacted minimal clinically important differences in COPD: an exploratory study

Tác giả

Harma Alma, Corina de Jong, Danijel Jelusic, Michael Wittmann, Thys van der Molen.

10. A limited number of medicines pragmatic trials had potential for waived informed consent following the 2016 CIOMS ethical guidelines

Tác giả

Rafael Dal-Ré, Cristina Avendaño-Solà, Anthonius de Boer, Stephan K. James, John P.A. Ioannidis.

10. Engaging knowledge users in a systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led models of care is possible: A cross-sectional survey using the Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool

Tác giả

Charlene Soobiah, Sharon E. Straus, Gayle Manley, Sharon Marr, Ainsley Moore.

10. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews

Tác giả

Frano Saric, Ognjen Barcot, Livia Puljak.

10. An overview of systematic reviews found suboptimal reporting and methodological limitations of mediation studies investigating causal mechanisms

Tác giả

Aidan G. Cashin, Hopin Lee, Sarah E. Lamb, Sally Hopewell, James H. McAuley.

10. A guidance was developed to identify participants with missing outcome data in randomized controlled trials

Tác giả

Lara A. Kahale, Gordon H. Guyatt, Thomas Agoritsas, Matthias Briel, Elie A. Akl.

10. The proportion of missing data should not be used to guide decisions on multiple imputation

Tác giả

Paul Madley-Dowd, Rachael Hughes, Kate Tilling, Jon Heron.

10. The timing and frequency of trial inclusion in systematic reviews of type 2 diabetes drugs was associated with trial characteristics

Tác giả

Adam G. Dunn, Liat Orenstein, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D. Mandl, Florence T. Bourgeois.

10. Participation weighting based on sociodemographic register data improved external validity in a population-based cohort study

Tác giả

Carl Bonander, Anton Nilsson, Jonas Björk, Göran M.L. Bergström, Ulf Strömberg.

10. The TRIP database showed most acute respiratory infections questions were already addressed by Cochrane reviews

Tác giả

Justin Clark, Matt Carter, Anna Mae Scott, Jon Brassey, Chris Del Mar.

10. A data-sharing agreement helps to increase researchers’ willingness to share primary data: results from a randomized controlled trial

Tác giả

Joshua R. Polanin, Mary Terzian.

10. GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: avoiding spurious judgments of imprecision in sparse networks

Tác giả

Romina Brignardello-Petersen, M. Hassan Murad, Stephen D. Walter, Shelley McLeod, ... Gordon H. Guyatt.

11. A new population-based risk stratification tool was developed and validated for predicting mortality, hospital admissions, and health care costs

Tác giả

Federico Rea, Giovanni Corrao, Monica Ludergnani, Luigi Cajazzo, Luca Merlino.

11. Models with interactions overestimated heterogeneity of treatment effects and were prone to treatment mistargeting

Tác giả

David van Klaveren, Theodor A. Balan, Ewout W. Steyerberg, David M. Kent.

11. Prevalence of trial registration varies by study characteristics and risk of bias

Tác giả

Aidan Christopher Tan, Ivy Jiang, Lisa Askie, Kylie Hunter, Anna Lene Seidler.

11. PubMed coverage varied across specialties and over time: a large-scale study of included studies in Cochrane reviews

Tác giả

Tove Faber Frandsen, Mette Brandt Eriksen, David Mortan Grøne Hammer, Janne Buck Christensen.

11. GRADE guidelines: 22. The GRADE approach for tests and strategies—from test accuracy to patient-important outcomes and recommendations

Tác giả

Holger J. Schünemann, Reem A. Mustafa, Jan Brozek, Nancy Santesso, Gordon H. Guyatt.

11. Contacting of authors modified crucial outcomes of systematic reviews but was poorly reported, not systematic, and produced conflicting results

Tác giả

Reint Meursinge Reynders, Luisa Ladu, Nicola Di Girolamo.

11. The selection of comparators for randomized controlled trials of health-related behavioral interventions: recommendations of an NIH expert panel

Tác giả

Kenneth E. Freedland, Abby C. King, Walter T. Ambrosius, Evan Mayo-Wilson, ... William T. Riley.

11. Overview authors rarely defined systematic reviews that are included in their overviews

Tác giả

Clovis Mariano Faggion, Karla Tatiana Diaz.

11. Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide

Tác giả

Amy Johnston, Shannon E. Kelly, Shu-Ching Hsieh, Becky Skidmore, George A. Wells.

11. Hybrid models were found to be very elegant to disentangle longitudinal within- and between-subject relationships

Tác giả

Jos W.R. Twisk, Wieke de Vente.

11. Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions

Tác giả

Konstantinos I. Bougioukas, Emmanouil Bouras, Fani Apostolidou-Kiouti, Stamatia Kokkali, ... Anna-Bettina Haidich.

11. Cohort studies were found to be frequently biased by missing disease information due to death

Tác giả

Nadine Binder, Anette Blümle, James Balmford, Edith Motschall, ... Martin Schumacher.

12. Most guideline organizations lack explicit guidance in how to incorporate cost considerations

Tác giả

Andrea Juliana Sanabria, Anna Kotzeva, Anna Selva Olid, Sandra Pequeño, Pablo Alonso-Coello.

12. Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations

Tác giả

Lin Wang, Benjamin Rouse, Arielle Marks-Anglin, Rui Duan, Tianjing Li.

12. Limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of education and training interventions on trial recruitment; a systematic review

Tác giả

Hannah Delaney, Declan Devane, Andrew Hunter, Marita Hennessy, Valerie Smith.

12. Baseline P value distributions in randomized trials were uniform for continuous but not categorical variables

Tác giả

Mark J. Bolland, Greg D. Gamble, Alison Avenell, Andrew Grey, Thomas Lumley.

12. Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso Coello, Gordon H. Guyatt, Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez, ... Holger J. Schünemann.

Tác giả

Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso Coello, Gordon H. Guyatt, Juan Jose Yepes-Nuñez, ... Holger J. Schünemann.

12. A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews

Tác giả

Tianjing Li, Ian J. Saldanha, Jens Jap, Bryant T. Smith, Christopher H. Schmid.

12. Most noninferiority trials were not designed to preserve active comparator treatment effects

Tác giả

Michael Tsui, Sunita Rehal, Vipul Jairath, Brennan C. Kahan.

12. An evidence rating service provided valid correlates of the clinical importance of medical articles and journals

Tác giả

R. Brian Haynes, Dalton Budhram, John Cherian, Emma Iserman, ... Cynthia Lokker.

12. GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence

Tác giả

Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Reem A. Mustafa, Reed A.C. Siemieniuk, M. Hassan Murad, ... Gordon H. Guyatt.

12. The shrinking scope of pragmatic trials: a methodological reflection on their domain of applicability

Tác giả

Ray Pawson.

12. Extremely large outlier treatment effects may be a footprint of bias in trials from less developed countries: randomized trials of gabapentinoids

Tác giả

Karishma Desai, Ian Carroll, Steven Asch, Tina Hernandez-Boussard, John P.A. Ioannidis.

12. No differences were found between effect estimates from conventional and registry-based randomized controlled trials

Tác giả

Tim Mathes, Pauline Klaßen, Dawid Pieper.

13. Colorectal cancer guidelines seldom include the patient perspective

Tác giả

A. Selva, A.J. Sanabria, E. Niño de Guzman, M. Ballesteros, P. Alonso-Coello.

13. Collection of antirheumatic medication data from both patients and rheumatologists shows strong agreement in a real-world clinical cohort: the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative—a rheumatoid arthritis cohort

Tác giả

Mohammad Movahedi, Angela Cesta, Xiuying Li, Claire Bombardier, S. Wilkinson.

13. Coherence in measurement and programming in maternal and newborn health: experience from the BetterBirth trial

Tác giả

Natalie Panariello, Amanda Jurczak, Jonathan Spector, Vishwajeet Kumar, Katherine Semrau.

13. Leveraging the entire cohort in drug safety monitoring: part 1 methods for sequential surveillance that use regression adjustment or weighting to control confounding in a multisite, rare event, distributed data setting

Tác giả

Jennifer C. Nelson, Ernesto Ulloa-Pérez, Jennifer F. Bobb, Judith C. Maro.

13. GRADE Guidelines: 19. Assessing the certainty of evidence in the importance of outcomes or values and preferences—Risk of bias and indirectness

Tác giả

Yuan Zhang, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Gordon H. Guyatt, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, ... Holger J. Schünemann.

13. Industry funding was associated with increased use of core outcome sets

Tác giả

Jamie J. Kirkham, Megan Bracken, Lorna Hind, Katie Pennington, Paula R. Williamson.

13. The ecosystem of evidence cannot thrive without efficiency of knowledge generation, synthesis, and translation

Tác giả

Antonino Cartabellotta, Julie K. Tilson.

13. Biomedical and public health reviews and meta-analyses in Ethiopia had poor methodological quality: overview of evidence from 1970 to 2018

Tác giả

Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold, Sisay Mulugeta Alemu, Shimels Hussien Mohammed, Aklilu Endalamaw, ... Balewgizie Sileshi Tegegne.

13. Automatic screening using word embeddings achieved high sensitivity and workload reduction for updating living network meta-analyses

Tác giả

Ivan Lerner, Perrine Créquit, Philippe Ravaud, Ignacio Atal.

13. Quality of stepped-wedge trial reporting can be reliably assessed using an updated CONSORT: crowd-sourcing systematic review

Tác giả

Karla Hemming, Kelly Carroll, Jennifer Thompson, Andrew Forbes, ... Bryony Dean Franklin.

13. Citation bias in the literature on dietary trans fatty acids and serum cholesterol

Tác giả

Miriam J.E. Urlings, Bram Duyx, Gerard M.H. Swaen, Lex M. Bouter, Maurice P.A. Zeegers.

13. Automatic extraction of quantitative data from ClinicalTrials.gov to conduct meta-analyses

Tác giả

Richeek Pradhan, David C. Hoaglin, Matthew Cornell, Weisong Liu, ... Hong Yu.

14. Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review

Tác giả

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Paloma Moreno-Nunez, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Karen R. Steingart, Javier Zamora.

14. Delphi panelists for a core outcome set project suggested both new and existing dissemination strategies that were feasibly implemented by a research infrastructure project

Tác giả

Ayodele Akinremi, Alison E. Turnbull, Caroline M. Chessare, Clifton O. Bingham, Victor D. Dinglas.

14. A cross-sectional audit showed that most Cochrane intervention reviews searched trial registers

Tác giả

Slavica Berber, Ava Grace Tan-Koay, Newton Opiyo, Kerry Dwan, Melina L. Willson.

14. Research environment of clinician–scientists in China in health policy/health services research

Tác giả

Mingyue Gao, Linda Zhou, Kun Tang, Matthew H. Liang.

14. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence

Tác giả

Holger J. Schünemann, Carlos Cuello, Elie A. Akl, Reem A. Mustafa, Gordon Guyatt.

14. The use of rigorous methods was strongly warranted among prognostic prediction models for obstetric care

Tác giả

Jing Tan, Yana Qi, Chunrong Liu, Yiquan Xiong, Xin Sun.

14. Should a systematic review be tested for reproducibility before its publication?

Tác giả

Clovis Mariano Faggion.

14. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research

Tác giả

Linda Nyanchoka, Catrin Tudur-Smith, Van Nguyen Thu, Valentia Iversen, ... Raphaël Porcher.

14. More than one-third of systematic reviews did not fully report the adverse events outcome

Tác giả

Rachael Parsons, Su Golder, Ian Watt.

14. Systematic review showed that stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials often did not reach their planned sample size

Tác giả

Felizitas A. Eichner, Rolf H.H. Groenwold, Diederick E. Grobbee, Katrien Oude Rengerink.

14. Conceptualizing multiple drug use in patients with comorbidity and multimorbidity: proposal for standard definitions beyond the term polypharmacy

Tác giả

Umesh T. Kadam, Isobel Roberts, Simon White, Ruth Bednall, ... Claire A. Lawson.

14. Two valid and reliable work role functioning questionnaire short versions were developed: WRFQ 5 and WRFQ 10

Tác giả

Femke Abma, Jakob Bue Bjorner, Benjamin C. Amick, Ute Bültmann.

15. Studies registered in non-ClinicalTrials.gov accounted for an increasing proportion of protocol registrations in medical research

Tác giả

Masahiro Banno, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka.

15. Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate

Tác giả

Stefano Negrini, Chiara Arienti, Joel Pollet, Julia Patrick Engkasan, Erin E. Edenfield.

15. A benefit–harm analysis of adding basal insulin vs. sulfonylurea to metformin to manage type II diabetes mellitus in people with multiple chronic conditions

Tác giả

Wendy L. Bennett, Hélène E. Aschmann, Milo A. Puhan, Craig W. Robbins, Cynthia M. Boyd.

15. Reporting checklist for methodological, that is, research on research studies is urgently needed

Tác giả

Livia Puljak.

15. Identifying and clarifying arguments in a recent debate regarding measures based on memory-based methods

Tác giả

Ralph M. Barnes.

15. Decision analytic modeling was useful to assess the impact of a prediction model on health outcomes before a randomized trial

Tác giả

Kevin Jenniskens, Ghizelda R. Lagerweij, Christiana A. Naaktgeboren, Lotty Hooft, Johannes B. Reitsma.

15. Decision making about healthcare–related tests and diagnostic test strategies: what “The death of Ivan Ilyich” teaches us

Tác giả

Paulo Schiavom Duarte.

15. Authors of trials from high-ranking anesthesiology journals were not willing to share raw data

Tác giả

Mirko Gabelica, Jakica Cavar, Livia Puljak.

15. Randomized trial seeking to induce the Hawthorne effect found no evidence for any effect on self-reported alcohol consumption online

Tác giả

Jim McCambridge, Amanda Wilson, John Attia, Natasha Weaver, Kypros Kypri.

15. Getting more out of meta-analyses: a new approach to meta-analysis in light of unexplained heterogeneity

Tác giả

Amit Saad, Daniel Yekutieli, Shaul Lev-Ran, Raz Gross, Gordon Guyatt.

15. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation

Tác giả

Leila Rooshenas, Lauren J. Scott, Jane M. Blazeby, Chris A. Rogers, ... Tim Wheatley.

15. novel superior medication-based chronic disease score predicted all-cause mortality in independent geriatric cohorts

Tác giả

Renate Quinzler, Michael H. Freitag, Birgitt Wiese, Martin Beyer, ... Walter E. Haefeli.

16. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status

Tác giả

Edita Runjic, Tanja Rombey, Dawid Pieper, Livia Puljak.

16. Searching for qualitative health research required several databases and alternative search strategies: a study of coverage in bibliographic databases

Tác giả

Tove Faber Frandsen, Frederik Alkier Gildberg, Ellen Boldrup Tingleff.

16. Premarket safety population size associated with approval of expedited program drugs and orphan drugs

Tác giả

Kachi Illoh.

16. Transparent and systematic reporting of meta-epidemiological studies

Tác giả

Anders Granholm, Carl Thomas Anthon, Anders Perner, Jon Henrik Laake, Morten Hylander Møller.

16. There are good clinical, scientific, and social reasons to strengthen links between biomedical and environmental research

Tác giả

Miquel Porta, Laura N. Vandenberg.

16. PROMIS 4-item measures and numeric rating scales efficiently assess SPADE symptoms compared with legacy measures

Tác giả

Kurt Kroenke, Timothy E. Stump, Jacob Kean, Tasneem L. Talib, Patrick O. Monahan.

16. Methodological studies evaluating evidence are not systematic reviews

Tác giả

Livia Puljak.

16. A modified Delphi and cross-sectional survey to facilitate selection of optimal outcomes and measures for a systematic review on geriatrician-led care models

Tác giả

Charlene Soobiah, Gayle Manley, Sharon Marr, Ainsley Moore, ... Sharon Straus.

16. Higher number of items associated with significantly lower response rates in COS Delphi surveys

Tác giả

Elizabeth Gargon, Richard Crew, Girvan Burnside, Paula R. Williamson.

16. Firm human evidence on harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals was unlikely to be obtainable for methodological reasons

Tác giả

Duk-Hee Lee, David R. Jacobs.

16. Few studies exist examining methods for selecting studies, abstracting data, and appraising quality in a systematic review

Tác giả

Reid C. Robson, Ba’ Pham, Jeremiah Hwee, Sonia M. Thomas, ... Andrea C. Tricco.

16. The reporting of safety among drug systematic reviews was poor before the implementation of the PRISMA harms checklist

Tác giả

Ling Li, Chang Xu, Ke Deng, Xu Zhou, ... Xin Sun.

17. Randomized controlled trials reflected clinical practice when comparing the course of low back pain symptoms in similar populations

Tác giả

Esther T. Maas, Johanna M. van Dongen, Johan N.S. Juch, J. George Groeneweg, Raymond W.J.G. Ostelo.

17. Who is in this study, anyway? Guidelines for a useful Table 1

Tác giả

Eleanor Hayes-Larson, Katrina L. Kezios, Stephen J. Mooney, Gina Lovasi.

17. Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate

Tác giả

Ognjen Barcot, Matija Boric, Svjetlana Dosenovic, Tina Poklepovic Pericic, Livia Puljak.

17. Research-on-research studies or methodological studies are primary research

Tác giả

Livia Puljak.

17. Including papers in languages other than English in systematic reviews: important, feasible, yet often omitted

Tác giả

Sarah Catherine Walpole.

17. Identifying compliant participants through data matching improved estimation of intervention efficacy: randomized trials with opt-in/opt-out strategies

Tác giả

Shu Kay Ng, Joshua Byrnes, Paul Scuffham.

17. Priority setting for Cochrane Review Groups

Tác giả

Chris Del Mar, Acute Respiratory Infections Cochrane Review Group.

17. Real-world evidence was feasible for estimating effectiveness of chemotherapy in breast cancer: a cohort study

Tác giả

Ewan Gray, Joachim Marti, David H. Brewster, Jeremy C. Wyatt, ... Peter S. Hall.

17. An overview of statistical methods for handling nonadherence to intervention protocol in randomized control trials: a methodological review

Tác giả

Mohammod Mostazir, Rod S. Taylor, William Henley, Ed Watkins.

17. The dynamics in health-related quality of life of patients with stable coronary artery disease were revealed: a network analysis

Tác giả

Tom H. Oreel, Denny Borsboom, Sacha Epskamp, Iris D. Hartog, ... Mirjam A.G. Sprangers.

17. The Delphi method—more research please

Tác giả

Susan Humphrey-Murto, Maarten de Wit.

17. How variation in predictor measurement affects the discriminative ability and transportability of a prediction model

Tác giả

R. Pajouheshnia, M. van Smeden, L.M. Peelen, R.H.H. Groenwold.

18. More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed

Tác giả

Clovis Mariano Faggion.

18. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool

Tác giả

Robert C. Lorenz, Katja Matthias, Dawid Pieper, Uta Wegewitz, Anja Jacobs.

18. Applying sequential surveillance methods that use regression adjustment or weighting to control confounding in a multisite, rare-event, distributed setting: Part 2 in-depth example of a reanalysis of the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella combination vaccine

Tác giả

Andrea J. Cook, Robert D. Wellman, Tracey Marsh, Azadeh Shoaibi, Jennifer C. Nelson.

18. How can metaresearch be classified?

Tác giả

Clovis Mariano Faggion, Karla Tatiana Diaz.

18. Reporting quality and statistical analysis of published dose-response meta-analyses was suboptimal: a cross-sectional literature survey

Tác giả

Qingqing Jiang, Qiaoyan Liu, Fan Chen, Xiantao Zeng, Shiyi Cao.

18. Details about informed consent procedures of randomized controlled trials should be reported transparently

Tác giả

Daniel Kotz, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Mark Spigt, Rik Crutzen.

18. The actor–partner interdependence model in shared decision-making: an illustrative example of its application to the physician–patient dyad in primary care consultations

Tác giả

Stéphane Turcotte, Hubert Robitaille, Louisa Blair, France Légaré.

18. Response to letter to editor “Only ITT analysis provides information about the actual effects of a health policy”: Assessment of health policy effects of health checks requires a broader perspective than the ITT

Tác giả

Lars Bruun Larsen, Trine Thilsing, Jens Sondergaard, Anne-Louise Bjerregaard.

18. Outcomes that patients perceive and value are systematically unassessed in randomized clinical trials of endocrine-related illnesses: a systematic review

Tác giả

Edgar Gerardo Dorsey-Treviño, Neri Alvarez-Villalobos, José Gerardo González-González, Alejandro Díaz González-Colmenero, ... René Rodriguez-Gutierrez.

18. Multimorbidity and comorbidity revisited: refining the concepts for international health research

Tác giả

Kathryn Nicholson, Tatjana T. Makovski, Lauren E. Griffith, Parminder Raina, ... Marjan van den Akker.

19. Database choice can be informed by both large-scale and in-depth analyses

Tác giả

Tove Faber Frandsen, Mette Brandt Eriksen, David Mortan Grøne Hammer, Janne Buck Christensen.

19. Using health insurance reimbursement data to identify incident cancer cases

Tác giả

Chao Shi, Mengfei Liu, Zhen Liu, Chuanhai Guo, Yang Ke.

19. Effect measure modification conceptualized using selection diagrams as mediation by mechanisms of varying population-level relevance

Tác giả

Priscilla M. Lopez, S.V. Subramanian, C. Mary Schooling.

19. Measuring clinical uncertainty as a preliminary step to randomized controlled trials

Tác giả

Robert Fahed, Tim E. Darsaut, Behzad Farzin, Miguel Chagnon, Jean Raymond.

19. A systematic review describes models for recruitment prediction at the design stage of a clinical trial

Tác giả

Efstathia Gkioni, Roser Rius, Susanna Dodd, Carrol Gamble.

19. Software engineering principles address current problems in the systematic review ecosystem

Tác giả

Rabia Bashir, Adam G. Dunn.

19. Sample size calculations need to be adequate and parsimonious

Tác giả

Bruno Mario Cesana, Paolo Antonelli.

19. Only ITT analysis provides information about the actual effects of a health policy - Author response

Tác giả

Anne Mette Bender, Charlotta Pisinger, Torben Jørgensen.

19. Don't forget about the “R” in cmRCT: reply to Groenwold and van Smeden

Tác giả

Helena M. Verkooijen, Alice Couwenberg, Anne May, Brett Thombs, ... Merrick Zwarenstein.

19. Letter re: Christiansen DH, de Vos Andersen N-B, Poulsen PH, Ostelo RW, The smallest worthwhile effect of primary care physiotherapy did not differ across musculoskeletal pain sites, Journal of clinical epidemiology (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05

Tác giả

Mark J. Hancock, Peter Kent

20. Frandsen et al. provide insights to PubMed coverage across all Cochrane Review Groups, but more in-depth analyses would further help inform database choices

Tác giả

Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Robin M. Featherstone.

20. The Clinician Guideline Determinants Questionnaire was developed and validated to support tailored implementation planning

Tác giả

Anna R. Gagliardi, Melissa J. Armstrong, Susanne Bernhardsson, Margot Fleuren, Yasser Sami Amer.

20. Reducing waste and increasing value through embedded replicability and reproducibility in systematic review process and automation

Tác giả

Farhad Shokraneh.

20. Contacting authors by telephone increased response proportions compared with emailing: results of a randomized study

Tác giả

Kristin J. Danko, Issa J. Dahabreh, Noah M. Ivers, David Moher, Jeremy M. Grimshaw.

20. A glimpse of the difference between predictive modeling and classification modeling

Tác giả

Uri Kartoun.

20. Conflict of interest is not associated with positive conclusions in toothpaste trials: a systematic survey

Tác giả

Carolina C. Martins, John J. Riva, Ramon T. Firmino, Luis E. Colunga-Lozano, ... Holger J. Schünemann.

20. Issues in interpreting and estimating the excess risk in case of count data

Tác giả

Federico Tedeschi.

20. Comparability of treatment arms does not prevent correlated trial results

Tác giả

Rolf H.H. Groenwold, Maarten van Smeden.

20. Reply to Hancock and Kent. Clinical important differences: a step toward a more intervention-specific approach

Tác giả

David H. Christiansen, Nils-Bo de Vos Andersen, Per H. Poulsen, Raymond W. Ostelo.

21. Statistical thinking, machine learning

Tác giả

Jiang Bian, Iain Buchan, Yi Guo, Mattia Prosperi.

21. The Trials within Cohorts design faced methodological advantages and disadvantages in the exercise oncology setting

Tác giả

Roxanne Gal, Evelyn M. Monninkhof, Carla H. van Gils, Rolf H.H. Groenwold, Anne M. May.

21. A scoping review found increasing examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses and no methodological guidance

Tác giả

Fiona Campbell, Laura Weeks, Andrew Booth, David Kaunelis, Andrea Smith.

21. Improving representation in telephone-based health care access surveys requires purposeful efforts to include prepaid cell phone users

Tác giả

Marcus E. Berzofsky, Caroline B. Scruggs, Bo Lu, Howard Speizer, Timothy Sahr.

21. Analyzing excess risk from matched designs with double controls: author's response

Tác giả

Donald A. Redelmeier, Robert J. Tibshirani.

21. Selective outcome reporting is present in randomized controlled trials in lung cancer immunotherapies

Tác giả

Reenika Aggarwal, Mark Oremus.

22. Statistics versus machine learning: definitions are interesting (but understanding, methodology, and reporting are more important)

Tác giả

Ben Van Calster, Jan Y. Verbakel, Evangelia Christodoulou, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Gary S. Collins.

22. Several reasons explained the variation in the results of 22 meta-analyses addressing the same question

Tác giả

Assem M. Khamis, Mohamad El Moheb, Johny Nicolas, Ghida Iskandarani, Elie A. Akl.

22. Letter re: stratification by quality is not recommended in meta-analysis

Tác giả

Jennifer Stone, Usha Gurunathan, Kathryn Glass, Zachary Munn, Suhail A.R. Doi.

22. Noninferiority drug trials fail to report adequate methodological detail: an assessment of noninferiority trials from 2010 to 2015

Tác giả

Jenny Hong, Anthony Tung, Angus Kinkade, Aaron M. Tejani.

22. “An error in an old paper illustrates the need for data/code archives”

Tác giả

B.D. McCullough.

23. Validity of health transition questions is supported by larger clinical improvements in purposive samples enriched for improvers

Tác giả

Michael M. Ward, Lori C. Guthrie.

23. A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses

Tác giả

Stefan Schandelmaier, Yaping Chang, Niveditha Devasenapathy, Tahira Devji, Gordon H. Guyatt.

23. Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias

Tác giả

Matthew J. Page, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Camilla Hansen, Jonathan A.C. Sterne.

23. Corrigendum to “Studies reporting ROC curves of diagnostic and prediction data were incorporated into meta-analyses using corresponding odds ratios” [J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 May;60(5):530-4]

Tác giả

S.D. Walter, T. Sinuff

23. An Error in An Old Paper Illustrates the Need for Data/Code Archives - Author response

Tác giả

Walter N. Kernan, Catherine M. Viscoli, Ralph I. Horwitz.

24. The ethics of cluster randomized trials: response to a proposal for revision of the Ottawa Statement

Tác giả

Charles Weijer, Monica Taljaard.

24. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extensions covered most types of randomized controlled trials, but the potential workload for authors was high

Tác giả

Lina Ghosn, Isabelle Boutron, Philippe Ravaud.

24. Hawthorne effect in the YourCall trial suggested by participants’ qualitative responses

Tác giả

Sarah Sharpe, Bridget Kool, Robyn Whittaker, Shanthi Ameratunga.

25. The moral and legal status of Health Care Workers in Cluster Randomized Trials: a response to Weijer and Taljaard

Tác giả

Rieke van der Graaf, Ghislaine J.M.W. van Thiel, Esther Oomen-de Hoop, Karel G.M. Moons, Johannes J.M. van Delden.

25. Retrieval of individual patient data depended on study characteristics: a randomized controlled trial

Tác giả

Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Huda M. Ashoor, Susan P.C. Le, Patricia Rios, Andrea C. Tricco.

25. The reply to Sharpe et al.: Hawthorne effect in the YourCall trial suggested by participants qualitative responses

Tác giả

Jim McCambridge, Amanda Wilson, John Attia, Natasha Weaver, Kypros Kypri.

26. The increasing complexity of the core outcomes landscape

Tác giả

Rachael M. Moloney, Donna A. Messner, Sean R. Tunis.

26. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study

Tác giả

Carl Thomas Anthon, Anders Granholm, Anders Perner, Jon Henrik Laake, Morten Hylander Møller.

27. Care and research concepts should be revised to practice outcome-based medical care

Tác giả

Jean Raymond, Tim E. Darsaut, David Roy.

27. Factors associated with trial recruitment, preferences, and treatments received were elucidated in a comprehensive cohort study

Tác giả

Jenny L. Donovan, Brent Opmeer, Grace J. Young, Nicola Mills, Jon Oxley.

28. Stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment require new ways of thinking

Tác giả

Richard Hooper, Andrew Copas.

28. Improvement needed in the network geometry and inconsistency of Cochrane network meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey

Tác giả

Ya Gao, Long Ge, Xueni Ma, Xiping Shen, Jinhui Tian.

29. Why mind-body medicine is poised to set a new standard for clinical research

Tác giả

Nadia M. Penrod, Jason H. Moore.

30. David Sackett Young Investigator Award

Tác giả

31. Reviewers of the year

Tác giả

32. Corrigendum to ‘Randomized cohort trial was shown to be feasible for evaluating treatments in low back pain’ Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Volume 67, Issue 8, August 2014, Pages 940-946

Tác giả

Vivienne Dascanio, Yvonne Birks, Laura Clark, Caroline Fairhurst, David J. Torgerson.