195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14528614)
1. Two-group experimental designs.
Brink PJ
West J Nurs Res; 2003 Oct; 25(6):619-22. PubMed ID: 14528614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. What's the rush? Internal validity is not a trivial pursuit.
Kovach CR
Res Gerontol Nurs; 2010 Jan; 3(1):2-4. PubMed ID: 20128537
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluating quantitative research designs: Part 2.
Haughey BP
Crit Care Nurse; 1994 Dec; 14(6):69-72. PubMed ID: 7712803
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Including qualitative research in Randomized Controlled Trials: Opportunities for nursing researchers.
Sasso L; Hayter M; Catania G; Aleo G; Zanini M; Bagnasco A
J Adv Nurs; 2019 Apr; 75(4):705-706. PubMed ID: 30307053
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluating research: what it means to you.
Maklebust J; Margolis DJ
Adv Wound Care; 1997; 10(4):4, 6. PubMed ID: 9306780
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Understanding and critiquing quantitative research papers.
Lee P
Nurs Times; 2006 Jul 11-17; 102(28):28-30. PubMed ID: 16869219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Case study: design? Method? Or comprehensive strategy?
Jones C; Lyons C
Nurse Res; 2004; 11(3):70-6. PubMed ID: 15065485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The problem of under-powering in nursing research.
King KM
West J Nurs Res; 2001 Jun; 23(4):334-5. PubMed ID: 11383398
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A critical approach to evidence provided through clinical trials.
Shaw S
Nurs Times; 2006 Sep 5-11; 102(36):36-8. PubMed ID: 16986593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Explanations for improvement in both experimental and control groups.
Becker H; Roberts G; Voelmeck W
West J Nurs Res; 2003 Oct; 25(6):746-55. PubMed ID: 14528620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Critical appraisal. 4. Questioning evidence: its validity and importance.
Thompson C
NT Learn Curve; 1999 Jun; 3(4):4-6. PubMed ID: 10478061
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Making inferences on treatment effects from real world data: propensity scores, confounding by indication, and other perils for the unwary in observational research.
Freemantle N; Marston L; Walters K; Wood J; Reynolds MR; Petersen I
BMJ; 2013 Nov; 347():f6409. PubMed ID: 24217206
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Understanding the error of our ways: mapping the concepts of validity and reliability.
Higgins PA; Straub AJ
Nurs Outlook; 2006; 54(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 16487776
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Case-control design: an appropriate strategy for nursing research.
Polivka BJ; Nickel JT
Nurs Res; 1992; 41(4):250-3. PubMed ID: 1482502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Fables or foibles: inherent problems with RCTs.
Rosner A
J Manipulative Physiol Ther; 2003 Sep; 26(7):460-7. PubMed ID: 12975633
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Reliability and validity in research.
Roberts P; Priest H
Nurs Stand; 2006 Jul 12-18; 20(44):41-5. PubMed ID: 16872117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Observational studies versus RCTs: what about socioeconomic factors?
Rosén M; Axelsson S; Lindblom J
Lancet; 2009 Jun; 373(9680):2026. PubMed ID: 19524779
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Controversies in acupuncture research: selection of controls and outcome measures in acupuncture clinical trials.
Langevin HM; Hammerschlag R; Lao L; Napadow V; Schnyer RN; Sherman KJ
J Altern Complement Med; 2006 Dec; 12(10):943-53. PubMed ID: 17212566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Understanding research: 3. Critiquing findings and conclusions.
Baxter H
J Wound Care; 2001 Oct; 10(9):376-9. PubMed ID: 12964283
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Understanding research: 2. Ensuring reliability and validity.
Baxter H
J Wound Care; 2001 Sep; 10(8):329-31. PubMed ID: 12964336
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
