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.
43. Using the Zelen design in randomized controlled trials: debates and controversies. Homer CS J Adv Nurs; 2002 Apr; 38(2):200-7. PubMed ID: 11940133 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Risk of bias in model-based economic evaluations: the ECOBIAS checklist. Adarkwah CC; van Gils PF; Hiligsmann M; Evers SM Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res; 2016 Aug; 16(4):513-23. PubMed ID: 26588001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Designing a prospective study when randomization is not feasible. Linden A Eval Health Prof; 2011 Jun; 34(2):164-80. PubMed ID: 20696741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Regulatory forum opinion piece: blind reading of histopathology slides in general toxicology studies. Neef N; Nikula KJ; Francke-Carroll S; Boone L Toxicol Pathol; 2012 Jun; 40(4):697-9. PubMed ID: 22407309 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Bias in research. Smith J; Noble H Evid Based Nurs; 2014 Oct; 17(4):100-1. PubMed ID: 25097234 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Credibility and methodology of effectiveness research keep us busy. Knottnerus JA; Tugwell P J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Feb; 63(2):115-6. PubMed ID: 20122498 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Using the biased coin design for randomization in health care research. Hjelm-Karlsson K West J Nurs Res; 1991 Apr; 13(2):284-8. PubMed ID: 2048317 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
52. Randomization in survival studies: An evaluation method that takes into account selection and chronological bias. Rückbeil MV; Hilgers RD; Heussen N PLoS One; 2019; 14(6):e0217946. PubMed ID: 31158260 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Podsakoff PM; MacKenzie SB; Podsakoff NP Annu Rev Psychol; 2012; 63():539-69. PubMed ID: 21838546 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Good laboratory practice: preventing introduction of bias at the bench. Macleod MR; Fisher M; O'Collins V; Sena ES; Dirnagl U; Bath PM; Buchan A; van der Worp HB; Traystman R; Minematsu K; Donnan GA; Howells DW Stroke; 2009 Mar; 40(3):e50-2. PubMed ID: 18703798 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Propensity score analysis with a time-dependent intervention is an acceptable although not an optimal analytical approach when treatment selection bias and survivor bias coexist. Tleyjeh IM; Ghomrawi HM; Steckelberg JM; Montori VM; Hoskin TL; Enders F; Huskins WC; Mookadam F; Wilson WR; Zimmerman V; Baddour LM J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Feb; 63(2):139-40. PubMed ID: 19913387 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
56. The case-control study. A practical review for the clinician. Hayden GF; Kramer MS; Horwitz RI JAMA; 1982 Jan; 247(3):326-31. PubMed ID: 7033572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Bias: considerations for research practice. Gerhard T Am J Health Syst Pharm; 2008 Nov; 65(22):2159-68. PubMed ID: 18997149 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Critical appraisal of studies using laboratory animal models. O'Connor AM; Sargeant JM ILAR J; 2014; 55(3):405-17. PubMed ID: 25541543 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Reflection on modern methods: selection bias-a review of recent developments. Infante-Rivard C; Cusson A Int J Epidemiol; 2018 Oct; 47(5):1714-1722. PubMed ID: 29982600 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]