Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols.
about
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventionsBias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventionsComparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trialsComparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trialsOutcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.govCONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsThe quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMedReporting of sample size calculation in randomised controlled trials: reviewRecommendations and evidence for reporting items in pediatric clinical trial protocols and reports: two systematic reviewsSample size determinations in original research protocols for randomised clinical trials submitted to UK research ethics committees: reviewEvidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trialsDifferences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentinPositive outcomes influence the rate and time to publication, but not the impact factor of publications of clinical trial resultsProtecting intellectual property associated with Canadian academic clinical trials--approaches and impactSPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trialsWhy we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish itDisclosure of investigators' recruitment performance in multicenter clinical trials: a further step for research transparencyDelta inflation: a bias in the design of randomized controlled trials in critical care medicine.Pre-referral rectal artesunate in severe malaria: flawed trial.Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials.Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results.Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portalWhat differences are detected by superiority trials or ruled out by noninferiority trials? A cross-sectional study on a random sample of two-hundred two-arms parallel group randomized clinical trials.The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications.The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review.Systematic evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols.Five questions that need answering when considering the design of clinical trials.Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articlesMeta-analysis of the association between APC promoter methylation and colorectal cancer.Treatment success in pragmatic randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded by the UK Health Technology Assessment programme.Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications.Occurrence and determinants of selective reporting of clinical drug trials: design of an inception cohort studyHow do researchers determine the difference to be detected in superiority trials? Results of a survey from a panel of researchers.Worldwide trends in volume and quality of published protocols of randomized controlled trialsDeveloping a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey.Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic reviewFrom protocol to published report: a study of consistency in the reporting of academic drug trials.Reporting of planned statistical methods in published surgical randomised trial protocols: a protocol for a methodological systematic reviewSPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.
P2860
Q24193207-D9D5FA77-1DEF-456F-99B6-BC2B49A1224AQ24198908-DDCD9716-17C3-4F4F-BEEB-A04FF4EE9978Q24235035-37C413D5-17D8-4F9B-8F50-A56ECDA9AAA3Q24235210-7E86ED50-8240-4661-A008-C3C23B7F8647Q24289273-5B2F8007-2604-43A0-A454-4D992DE065D5Q24614627-81E21DE3-75F7-4AFD-8BA5-B129C3352180Q24614702-5070AF55-E266-431B-951A-71054BB547BDQ24645630-0D89D725-2DD7-4D03-9608-E7C5BF677BAFQ26783200-03CA276E-797C-4E8F-8D61-62B51ED20657Q26827210-450CB5FD-23F8-4125-9E79-2165F7BE7653Q26995587-67A765FD-8156-420F-8FF1-DC7606D3CAADQ28485343-061D6E8E-60EB-4872-AEFA-936E6D5EDCDCQ28485388-B0A4FDC1-AB7B-4B95-B916-A51A2B043931Q28709532-95FEFD22-E21D-49FC-869E-F9C317A0B6B0Q28710019-625E6A64-F597-4FF7-9701-0775387480ACQ28732492-601953A3-6CFB-4F3E-80A7-1AD8F573E189Q28740869-81C5F7CA-5303-4AE0-8E53-D10E01D718E2Q30435820-0E404BB4-4FD6-4A29-A1D2-3810AC5575BDQ30504139-10A0105B-6E03-48EE-846F-7805F339DE35Q30878095-250F4E6A-5E2D-40DE-AAD2-3EC56DDCCD54Q33391502-477C10AC-EF32-43A7-825C-25CA6376A82AQ33687278-012233F3-37AA-47A7-9288-74A4F4F9D3C0Q33719931-6BD9CE0F-7670-4F63-8089-DE74BE8F76EDQ33877196-65EC5348-6039-4758-B6BD-C0A4E30F7D22Q33909616-98EDB64D-79D6-465E-BA4B-7E024DC292F1Q34094055-1093DDAC-5C37-42FA-81DC-985D435F11F1Q34344163-3CB0A710-5078-47C2-ADE9-4307FD13A41FQ34468919-37F7F6F3-CE4A-4051-9DC8-006020F9F6C1Q34763364-79E4C567-A90B-4254-A303-8E910FD75D9DQ35006439-7ADFA7C7-D962-4247-B3F2-F0235008FE26Q35042324-3B804258-D65A-406E-982E-077CE6EB0DD6Q35060093-3212B41E-58A4-48E1-897E-06E0E4C6C7E9Q35844255-DEC7E2B8-07D6-4F59-8D55-6B6A00F38EADQ36090159-5D0B5486-0A57-4220-8CD3-E8E19355746EQ36309066-A018860B-C53E-47AF-9A45-79D02CF427A5Q36498619-481820FE-B7F8-48E9-B8E7-54804C8237D8Q36498818-3A046730-684E-4794-9A3B-06CD4AE1B328Q36600030-D395F99B-792C-4077-BD29-DF8F0A561283Q36971040-7FB3A7A5-B884-4550-A62E-294928B95567Q37420941-D41B95D4-7B8F-4043-9040-69CDA7132BD8
P2860
Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols.
description
2008 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2008 թուականի Դեկտեմբերին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2008 թվականի դեկտեմբերին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2008年の論文
@ja
2008年論文
@yue
2008年論文
@zh-hant
2008年論文
@zh-hk
2008年論文
@zh-mo
2008年論文
@zh-tw
2008年论文
@wuu
name
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@ast
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@en
type
label
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@ast
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@en
prefLabel
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@ast
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@en
P2860
P50
P356
P1433
P1476
Discrepancies in sample size c ...... f publications with protocols.
@en
P2093
An-Wen Chan
P2860
P356
10.1136/BMJ.A2299
P407
P577
2008-12-04T00:00:00Z