Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists
about
The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative: Its Role in Improving Cochrane ReviewsAntibiotic therapy for preventing infections in patients with acute strokeStatins for multiple sclerosisManaging the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groupsEvidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trialsSystematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults.Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 StudiesWhy clinical translation cannot succeed without failureProtecting intellectual property associated with Canadian academic clinical trials--approaches and impactSPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trialsResults and outcome reporting In ClinicalTrials.gov, what makes it happen?"Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study.The natural history of conducting and reporting clinical trials: interviews with trialists.Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension.Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review.A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published resultsIs Mandatory Prospective Trial Registration Working to Prevent Publication of Unregistered Trials and Selective Outcome Reporting? An Observational Study of Five Psychiatry Journals That Mandate Prospective Clinical Trial Registration.Centre selection for clinical trials and the generalisability of results: a mixed methods study.Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications.What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews.Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviewsConclusiveness of the Cochrane reviews in gynaecological cancer: A systematic analysis.FDAAA legislation is working, but methodological flaws undermine the reliability of clinical trials: a cross-sectional studyOccurrence and determinants of selective reporting of clinical drug trials: design of an inception cohort studyTransparency of Outcome Reporting and Trial Registration of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.Using meta-analyses for comparative effectiveness research.Outcome measures of chinese herbal medicine for hypertension: an overview of systematic reviews.From protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials.Publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records.Presentation of continuous outcomes in randomised trials: an observational study.Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.Systematic review of knowledge translation strategies in the allied health professions.Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery.Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol.SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.Published and not fully published double-blind, randomised, controlled trials with oral naratriptan in the treatment of migraine: a review based on the GSK Trial Register.A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews.SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trialsThe evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration.
P2860
Q24199056-4096C999-FAF8-413D-A5C4-D41F8BE499B4Q24203835-D961BE64-588A-489F-80DF-7C53373F246BQ24234119-C8DF1519-E6E2-4ED9-BE90-76DDA53A2C2CQ26866471-E90C4EB9-C47C-442C-ADCF-0690159DA59EQ26995587-B4276BDE-C8A5-4AF0-B7FD-EDE5909DFD1BQ27333625-C315CF8F-2221-4FE8-A2B5-1292A4029B15Q28598096-82F436FB-C7E5-4AC2-AEB7-8870A9FFCB1EQ28607112-2844875E-DEA5-4CAB-BEB9-7B4F697C01A7Q28709532-ACDDBFCE-0A4E-4471-86DF-C3C01A0C805FQ28710019-D675F49D-F31E-4146-8B64-EEBF2D3B4AF1Q28728487-08997379-3C2D-437E-9EF3-4284ACDED6ECQ30552717-E1FF2758-AE4A-46D8-9A88-0AF2EC823370Q30620046-89CB4A2B-67D9-4866-B024-64FEEC9BE25DQ30670694-4764CE2A-703D-459D-A16D-3812685FAB57Q33751652-3BE73FC1-7B94-49FC-B6D4-73BBBDDDABBCQ33864361-1EA49568-2BFD-450E-B276-EFD13C826B4DQ34490152-07343700-536D-4E88-99ED-2476985A5547Q34602399-76BCFD61-202E-43FC-9C62-4EF288534BBBQ35060093-A4B0F690-0825-4AD9-8421-8F0728CF0FECQ35431427-7F03A289-1C34-47E6-AC77-D2C7FD82419FQ35443602-E79E36D6-CFB4-4D53-ABE3-48879344CBCCQ35600621-BF42C144-9166-415D-BE1C-C7B5BDF26190Q35796605-BC95B712-19C4-460A-B6D4-0F47D8792060Q35844255-00B51CCA-86E3-405D-A486-77D657861830Q35845397-C1DF8A98-8294-4323-88FB-1615F2927B98Q36000225-DBCB6B05-D5E6-4EA5-A44E-AB4573978F8AQ36095459-AFB6FE27-F787-4A6C-9C0B-8689A21D06EEQ36528480-8DA67B3F-BC06-4038-B9E3-4CCCCFE219B1Q36600030-E3863091-38F4-44AC-AF4E-D5B468E3CA3AQ36870671-84903131-73DB-49F9-A3A3-E8B94E4F4361Q36890188-34DF84A1-628F-4345-B0AC-29685E0B8C17Q37046876-B0892DD9-F875-45B7-80E4-16DA998A37D1Q37191497-95A6C6E5-120A-42C8-9466-99CBED45511DQ37279152-39799AAE-FA09-4D4D-B72C-B8954BF54AC6Q37312458-07F26965-1E67-41F5-9009-27F527302531Q37420941-453EC8CD-0A06-4DE4-9D46-AAA71C1E660DQ37857762-66C0B513-F8FB-4905-9A91-B78B209CFC28Q38005329-7962A2A8-DEC2-48A6-9700-C85C8EF31A3EQ38072250-A49934BF-4BED-4731-95E8-812A5E0C933DQ38141169-80EF4936-EC77-4DA9-AA56-BB97ECB5B486
P2860
Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists
description
2011 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2011 թուականի Յունուարին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2011 թվականի հունվարին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2011年の論文
@ja
2011年論文
@yue
2011年論文
@zh-hant
2011年論文
@zh-hk
2011年論文
@zh-mo
2011年論文
@zh-tw
2011年论文
@wuu
name
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@ast
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@en
type
label
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@ast
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@en
prefLabel
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@ast
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@en
P2093
P2860
P356
P1433
P1476
Frequency and reasons for outc ...... als: interviews with trialists
@en
P2093
D G Altman
P R Williamson
P2860
P356
10.1136/BMJ.C7153
P407
P577
2011-01-06T00:00:00Z