Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer.

about

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

P2860

Q57491117-A86BE7F7-EBC1-402E-BAC4-B51AEA29D6B9

P2860

Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer.

Item

http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q38389751

description

2015 nî lūn-bûn

@nan

2015年の論文

@ja

2015年論文

@yue

2015年論文

@zh-hant

2015年論文

@zh-hk

2015年論文

@zh-mo

2015年論文

@zh-tw

2015年论文

@wuu

2015年论文

@zh

2015年论文

@zh-cn

name

Quality evaluation of randomiz ...... section for colorectal cancer.

@en

type

Item

label

Quality evaluation of randomiz ...... section for colorectal cancer.

@en

prefLabel

Quality evaluation of randomiz ...... section for colorectal cancer.

@en

P1476

Quality evaluation of randomiz ...... section for colorectal cancer.

@en

P2093

Dan Chen

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Dandan Huang

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Feng Sun

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Fengliang Hu

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Hongjie Li

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Jie Gao

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Liming Lu

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Weimin Luo

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Wentao Zhao

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

Xin Jin

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P2860

What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials

Assessing the quality of reports about randomized controlled trials of acupuncture treatment on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy

Global cancer statistics, 2002

Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials

A meta-analysis of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer.

Meta-analysis of short-term outcomes after laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.

Quality of surgical randomized controlled trials for acute cholecystitis: assessment based on CONSORT and additional check items.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.

Methodologic standards in surgical trials.

P304

727-732

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P31

scholarly article

P356

10.1586/14737140.2015.1043896

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P433

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P478

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P577

2015-05-23T00:00:00Z

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime

P698

26004141

http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string

P921

colorectal cancer

laparoscopy

Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer.

about

P2860

P2860

Quality evaluation of randomized controlled trials reports of laparoscopy compared with open colorectal resection for colorectal cancer.

description

name

type

label

prefLabel

P1433

P1476

P2093

P2860

P304

P31

P356

P433

P478

P577

P698

P921

P356

P1433

P1476

P2093

P2860

P304

P31

P356

P433

P478

P577

P698

P921