124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20609424)
21. 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]
22. Guilt by association.
van Rijswijk L
Ostomy Wound Manage; 1998 Apr; 44(4):4, 6. PubMed ID: 9611600
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Critically evaluating research studies.
Rogers B
AAOHN J; 1995 Jan; 43(1):54-5. PubMed ID: 7695808
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Fumes from the spleen.
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol; 1996 Jul; 10(3):264-7. PubMed ID: 8822769
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Making sure corrections don't vanish online.
Shim EH; Parekh V
Nature; 2005 Mar; 434(7029):18; discussion 18. PubMed ID: 15744271
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Upgrading our instructions for authors.
Schriger DL; Wears RL; Cooper RJ; Callaham ML
Ann Emerg Med; 2003 Apr; 41(4):565-7. PubMed ID: 12658258
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Nurse editors' views on the peer review process.
Kearney MH; Freda MC
Res Nurs Health; 2005 Dec; 28(6):444-52. PubMed ID: 16287058
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. How to assess rigour . . . or not in qualitative papers.
Sale JE
J Eval Clin Pract; 2008 Oct; 14(5):912-3. PubMed ID: 19018925
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Reporting of randomized clinical trials and other population-based research: a priority of Archives of Neurology.
Shoulson I; Rosenberg RN
Arch Neurol; 2004 Jan; 61(1):20-1. PubMed ID: 14732613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Developing critical appraisal skills.
McCaughan D
Prof Nurse; 1999 Sep; 14(12):843-7. PubMed ID: 10603895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Recommendations for including or reviewing patient reported outcome endpoints in grant applications.
Snyder C; Gilbert A; Moher D; Kyte D; Daniels E; King M; Calvert M; Chen RC; Brundage M;
BMJ; 2021 Jun; 373():n1367. PubMed ID: 34193444
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Raising standards.
Nat Immunol; 2013 May; 14(5):415. PubMed ID: 23598386
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Peer review could be improved by market forces.
Jaffe K
Nature; 2006 Feb; 439(7078):782. PubMed ID: 16482127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Peer review: recognition via year-end statements.
van Loon AJ
Nature; 2003 May; 423(6936):116. PubMed ID: 12736656
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Peer reviews: in praise of referees.
Altschuler EL
Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614062
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Randomized controlled trials in surgery: comic opera no more?
Kassell NF; Dumont AS
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):243-4. PubMed ID: 16872942
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. International peer review improved Irish research rankings.
O'Carroll C
Nature; 2009 Aug; 460(7258):949. PubMed ID: 19693064
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Randomized clinical trials in surgery: why do we need them?
Balch CM
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Aug; 132(2):241-2. PubMed ID: 16872941
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Peer reviews: make them public.
Mietchen D
Nature; 2011 May; 473(7348):452. PubMed ID: 21614064
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. NIH responds to critics on peer review.
Wadman M
Nature; 2008 Jun; 453(7197):835. PubMed ID: 18548033
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
