A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable.
about
Methods of blinding in reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments: a systematic reviewMotor control exercise for acute non-specific low back painNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for chronic low back painMotor control exercise for chronic non-specific low-back painMassage for low-back painLow-level laser therapy for neck painImpact of long-term opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain on misuse, abuse or addiction, overdose, falls and fracturesAllogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remissionAllogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first complete remissionParacetamol for low back painReporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatmentsEffectiveness of joint mobilisation after cast immobilisation for ankle fracture: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial [ACTRN012605000143628].Maximum recovery after knee replacement--the MARKER study rationale and protocol.High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease.Assessing blinding in trials of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis based on blinding indexSystematic review of clinical trials of cervical manipulation: control group procedures and pain outcomes.Standardisation of information submitted to an endpoint committee for cause of death assignment in a cancer screening trial – lessons learnt from CAP (Cluster randomised triAl of PSA testing for Prostate cancer).The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement: a systematic review.A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial qualityTowards a proposal for assessment of blinding success in clinical trials: up-to-date review.Assessing blinding in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture: challenges and recommendations.The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration.Can assessors in a psychotherapy trial be successfully blinded? Analysis of a randomized controlled trial on psychotherapy for refractory insomnia in residual depression.Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial.Double-blind studies are not always optimum for evaluation of a novel therapy: the case of new anticoagulants.Random Guess and Wishful Thinking are the Best Blinding Scenarios.Clinical and cost-effectiveness of one-session treatment (OST) versus multisession cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for specific phobias in children: protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trialPredictors of treatment allocation guesses in a randomized controlled trial testing double-blind injectable hydromorphone and diacetylmorphine for severe opioid use disorder
P2860
Q21090146-C0CAAFEA-4F02-4114-8601-8690FE40DD2CQ24186152-9D53E10E-5AFF-4501-A2D4-FF300DF34664Q24186153-D39D113D-FDF9-48B3-8EFA-34A180E17BE0Q24186539-726AB7BF-6985-4B4C-AFE0-239542B5FDEEQ24187377-868A28E6-D660-4173-8DF0-97F43613B78AQ24188164-4CD33186-CD35-4463-B898-5B4D15D61AC5Q24197620-0DBAB9FA-9761-4D15-91D3-1F345821C024Q24234305-21279AFC-98A4-4695-8F0A-FE78C4B66B32Q24235952-03211392-D5BA-4C23-8786-B466DCF19566Q26278817-D4F50237-BF2D-4680-AEDC-ADA003B57840Q28469142-82186B31-91B9-4DA0-8F0F-D6ECEC490D61Q33244908-57DB626C-94E8-4EA5-9C30-8CBB4DC7A185Q33469932-0D8FB221-8529-4511-9BD5-997193F8BE7BQ33929737-A85CC56A-4437-4BE0-821F-3D047A11FF1BQ34280031-171667F9-B8C5-47F0-83F4-513F3CC51BBFQ34577606-427842BA-5C06-435D-A503-C22B3DDADAB7Q35547542-734FDCE8-DC2F-468E-A859-29191C0DA3F7Q36632862-A05F9131-CF21-4B0F-A793-AA4060A6AA5FQ37223882-B89FF893-762D-465A-B450-E3C943ADA312Q37598375-67510EDB-3B72-4615-8C0C-BA43DC448500Q37848177-7AE4B380-CC80-47E2-8738-72EF90A6715AQ38141169-C9007F13-8BFF-4245-A58F-724E6AAA2443Q45220480-54CBDF26-6A4B-450E-B41D-22C2BB206CCAQ45902242-66988CE0-040B-47F1-A1A9-2BCFCD1DACA0Q53168179-22B93AED-7554-4A90-A5B5-B559EA5DB181Q53223634-73728A46-0D90-46D3-8A46-07777D5A33B0Q56516110-5691CBE1-F086-4906-B45C-AE61E037686BQ57723662-B921768F-E99C-4804-8512-B00603C5C9D9
P2860
A review of blinding in randomized controlled trials found results inconsistent and questionable.
description
2005 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2005年の論文
@ja
2005年学术文章
@wuu
2005年学术文章
@zh-cn
2005年学术文章
@zh-hans
2005年学术文章
@zh-my
2005年学术文章
@zh-sg
2005年學術文章
@yue
2005年學術文章
@zh
2005年學術文章
@zh-hant
name
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@ast
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@en
type
label
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@ast
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@en
prefLabel
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@ast
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@en
P50
P1476
A review of blinding in random ...... inconsistent and questionable.
@en
P304
P356
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2005.04.006
P577
2005-09-30T00:00:00Z