These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
3. Blinded and unblinded internal pilot study designs for clinical trials with count data. Schneider S; Schmidli H; Friede T Biom J; 2013 Jul; 55(4):617-33. PubMed ID: 23703749 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. An analysis of systematic reviews undertaken on standard advanced wound dressings in the last 10 years. Horkan L; Stansfield G; Miller M J Wound Care; 2009 Jul; 18(7):298-304. PubMed ID: 19827483 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Estimating risk from underpowered, but statistically significant, studies: was APPROVe on TARGET? La Caze A; Duffull S J Clin Pharm Ther; 2011 Dec; 36(6):637-41. PubMed ID: 22023341 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Method of balanced adjustment in testing co-primary endpoints. Kordzakhia G; Siddiqui O; Huque MF Stat Med; 2010 Aug; 29(19):2055-66. PubMed ID: 20683896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical trials in wound care I: the advantages and limitations of different clinical trial designs. Venkatraman P; Anand S; Dean C; Nettleton R J Wound Care; 2002 Mar; 11(3):91-4. PubMed ID: 11933731 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Publication bias was not a good reason to discourage trials with low power. Borm GF; den Heijer M; Zielhuis GA J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jan; 62(1):47.e1-10. PubMed ID: 18620841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Sutton AJ; Abrams KR; Jones DR; Sheldon TA; Song F Health Technol Assess; 1998; 2(19):1-276. PubMed ID: 10347832 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of a wound dressing using different research methods. Reynolds T; Russell L Br J Nurs; 2004 Jun; 13(11):S21-4. PubMed ID: 15228025 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Designing and running clinical trials on farms. Sanderson MW Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract; 2006 Mar; 22(1):103-23. PubMed ID: 16517298 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Factors influencing the evaluation of an article in cancer literature. Kumaraswamy ; Supe SS; Ramesh C Indian J Cancer; 1999; 36(2-4):69-79. PubMed ID: 10921210 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: reporting standards. Brölmann FE; Eskes AM; Sumpio BE; Mayer DO; Moore Z; Agren MS; Hermans M; Cutting K; Legemate DA; Vermeulen H; Ubbink DT Wound Repair Regen; 2013; 21(5):641-7. PubMed ID: 23937172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Strengthening the reliability and credibility of observational epidemiology studies by creating an Observational Studies Register. Swaen GM; Carmichael N; Doe J J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 May; 64(5):481-6. PubMed ID: 20643528 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: design and conduct. Eskes AM; Brölmann FE; Sumpio BE; Mayer D; Moore Z; Agren MS; Hermans M; Cutting K; Legemate DA; Ubbink DT; Vermeulen H Wound Repair Regen; 2012; 20(4):449-55. PubMed ID: 22642397 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Bias and loss: the two sides of a biased coin. Atkinson AC Stat Med; 2012 Dec; 31(28):3494-503. PubMed ID: 22736426 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Interpretation of epidemiologic studies. Type of study, elements of bias, causality]. Touzet S; Colin C Rev Prat; 1999 Oct; 49(16):1797-804. PubMed ID: 10578612 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]