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.
4. Consensus publication guidelines: the next step in the science of quality improvement? Thomson RG Qual Saf Health Care; 2005 Oct; 14(5):317-8. PubMed ID: 16195562 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. Scales CD; Norris RD; Keitz SA; Peterson BL; Preminger GM; Vieweg J; Dahm P J Urol; 2007 Mar; 177(3):1090-4; discussion 1094-5. PubMed ID: 17296417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cautionary tales in the interpretation of systematic reviews of therapy trials. Scott I; Greenberg P; Poole P; Campbell D Intern Med J; 2006 Sep; 36(9):587-99. PubMed ID: 16911551 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Improving the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery. Carney S Int J Surg; 2007 Dec; 5(6):376. PubMed ID: 18063433 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Is significant relevant? Validity and patient benefit of randomized controlled clinical trials on age-related macular degeneration. Joussen AM; Lehmacher W; Hilgers RD; Kirchhof B Surv Ophthalmol; 2007; 52(3):266-78. PubMed ID: 17472802 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of randomized controlled trials. Stanley K Circulation; 2007 Apr; 115(13):1819-22. PubMed ID: 17404173 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. ACCE, pharmacogenomics, and stopping clinical trials: time to extend the CONSORT statement? Ozdemir V; Joly Y; Knoppers BM Am J Bioeth; 2011 Mar; 11(3):11-3. PubMed ID: 21400375 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Selection bias results in misinterpretation of randomized controlled trials on arthroscopic treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Ilahi OA Arthroscopy; 2010 Feb; 26(2):144-6. PubMed ID: 20141976 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Failures in sample size calculation in randomized trial: mandatory and mystical]. Schulz KF; Grimes DA Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich; 2006; 100(2):129-35. PubMed ID: 16686447 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [Measuring errors in neonatal randomized controlled trials. Deficient quality concerning the informed consent]. Finnström O Lakartidningen; 2001 May; 98(20):2474-5. PubMed ID: 11433980 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. CONSORT and QUOROM statements revisited: standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery. Knobloch K; Gohritz A; Vogt PM Ann Surg; 2008 Dec; 248(6):1106-7; discussion 1107-8. PubMed ID: 19092359 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Re: A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. C. D. Scales, Jr., R. D. Norris, s. A. Keitz, B. L. Peterson, G. M. Preminger, J. Vieweg and P. Dahm. J Urol 2007; 177: 1090-1095. Mesrobian HG J Urol; 2008 Jun; 179(6):2488-9; author reply 2489. PubMed ID: 18439625 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. Wen J; Ren Y; Wang L; Li Y; Liu Y; Zhou M; Liu P; Ye L; Li Y; Tian W J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):770-5. PubMed ID: 18411041 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: quality of design is not the only relevant variable. Berk PD; Sacks HS Hepatology; 1999 Nov; 30(5):1332-4. PubMed ID: 10534359 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The STROBE initiative and its implications for dental public health research. Downer M Community Dent Health; 2007 Dec; 24(4):194-7. PubMed ID: 18246835 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]