Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed.
about
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journalsPartial liquid ventilation for preventing death and morbidity in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndromeSystematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancerDevelopment and validation of COMPASS: clinical evidence of orphan medicinal products - an assessment tool.A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality.The Ontology of Clinical Research (OCRe): an informatics foundation for the science of clinical research.Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.Avoidable waste related to inadequate methods and incomplete reporting of interventions: a systematic review of randomized trials performed in Sub-Saharan Africa.Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysisAn evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.CONSORT item reporting quality in the top ten ranked journals of critical care medicine in 2011: a retrospective analysis.How transparent is behavioral intervention research on pathological gambling and other gambling-related disorders? A systematic literature review.Quality of randomized controlled trials in eating disorder prevention.Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines.Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis.Major discrepancies between what clinical trial registries record and paediatric randomised controlled trials publish.Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis.The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs.Poor reporting quality of key Randomization and Allocation Concealment details is still prevalent among published RCTs in 2011: a review.Allocation concealment: a methodological review.Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010.Transparent reporting of trials is essential.Randomised controlled trials in plastic surgery: a systematic review of reporting quality.Trends in 'poor responder' research: lessons learned from RCTs in assisted conception.Evidence for the future - Designing a clinical trial.The reliability of methodological ratings for speechBITE using the PEDro-P scale.AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.Trial Reports: Improving Reporting, Minimizing Bias, and Producing Better Evidence-Based Practice
P2860
Q24197568-E551FE49-F1FF-4599-8617-D5C83163162DQ24201112-3CB84877-D9C6-4819-BBDB-8F5AD45CCB91Q27008416-315660B5-4A12-499F-B04C-254643D078C3Q30559014-E4F2B575-A9F7-475F-A189-BC2837C5AD37Q33588928-D010CE31-EDBD-4525-970E-1F7D9099FB07Q33605391-79195D12-BC6B-4A94-B42C-72BCD1258517Q33814405-C10FCFC6-DE24-484D-AE09-162CF5A3BB5DQ33872061-E8E2856E-0C8A-4080-8DB4-C3587BC06AE9Q34135659-05F11CBE-8AD7-4EEB-B25C-1EA7D6104B0FQ34558486-F828D8FA-F8F4-49EA-8677-39D76A88C1F1Q34756026-BB7E7C97-21CB-4A95-B7EC-1BBDF50E28E5Q35644520-74003744-5645-4DE6-8CF3-A3EF29D6C3D6Q36106352-4609353C-55F6-47B6-BDAC-205337EA4793Q36367806-9C19F3E7-12C9-4BEC-9FED-07D104186626Q36496634-9A8554B0-5B9E-411A-BEA8-C4CD9742A468Q37177363-FD1D2E90-133E-4482-A5C7-72256D911D45Q37278474-F469A82E-213F-468E-9C0E-5C7189337859Q37359720-220906AD-D429-4BE2-8F3A-D0D084966E4EQ37421215-70F04808-2C15-48A4-BECF-D0F73DE0584AQ38104480-46471376-5793-4FDA-B05A-6B3F5C999CF4Q38104487-2D9EC1EC-0FA1-4DEC-A1D0-253DE23C44FEQ38112559-7F8CCBEE-2F11-40E8-AF31-BA76D992DD59Q38126350-F0C6120E-E595-4BED-8B35-C6900F34CF16Q38202629-845EFD89-6D6A-4D65-89C3-1174ECC83D90Q38722378-79AB90EB-B1B9-41D2-83F2-1E68150778EAQ39659903-4330D87F-8B26-4E56-80F0-CC5AB9CBF856Q44012254-88768FEB-026B-4DDA-A8F3-54250E385A62Q47684085-3EDD8052-2766-4568-916C-FA2583013A65Q56880236-6F6F7B5B-5A41-443C-A5F8-192F5046A4AC
P2860
Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed.
description
2010 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2010 թուականի Օգոստոսին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2010 թվականի օգոստոսին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2010年の論文
@ja
2010年論文
@yue
2010年論文
@zh-hant
2010年論文
@zh-hk
2010年論文
@zh-mo
2010年論文
@zh-tw
2010年论文
@wuu
name
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@ast
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@en
type
label
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@ast
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@en
prefLabel
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@ast
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@en
P2093
P1476
Reviews assessing the quality ...... about how quality is assessed.
@en
P2093
Agnes Dechartres
Pierre Charles
Sally Hopewell
P304
P356
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2010.04.015
P577
2010-08-12T00:00:00Z