243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21474279)
1. Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study.
Herbison P; Hay-Smith J; Gillespie WJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):1070-5. PubMed ID: 21474279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials.
Pildal J; Hróbjartsson A; Jørgensen KJ; Hilden J; Altman DG; Gøtzsche PC
Int J Epidemiol; 2007 Aug; 36(4):847-57. PubMed ID: 17517809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study.
Dechartres A; Boutron I; Trinquart L; Charles P; Ravaud P
Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):39-51. PubMed ID: 21727292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Eliminating bias in randomized controlled trials: importance of allocation concealment and masking.
Viera AJ; Bangdiwala SI
Fam Med; 2007 Feb; 39(2):132-7. PubMed ID: 17273956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.
Savović J; Jones H; Altman D; Harris R; Jűni P; Pildal J; Als-Nielsen B; Balk E; Gluud C; Gluud L; Ioannidis J; Schulz K; Beynon R; Welton N; Wood L; Moher D; Deeks J; Sterne J
Health Technol Assess; 2012 Sep; 16(35):1-82. PubMed ID: 22989478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers.
Doig GS; Simpson F
J Crit Care; 2005 Jun; 20(2):187-91; discussion 191-3. PubMed ID: 16139163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors.
Wang Y; Parpia S; Couban R; Wang Q; Armijo-Olivo S; Bassler D; Briel M; Brignardello-Petersen R; Gluud LL; Keitz SA; Letelier LM; Ravaud P; Schulz KF; Siemieniuk RAC; Zeraatkar D; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Jan; 165():111211. PubMed ID: 37939743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study.
Pildal J; Chan AW; Hróbjartsson A; Forfang E; Altman DG; Gøtzsche PC
BMJ; 2005 May; 330(7499):1049. PubMed ID: 15817527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of bias on the magnitude of clinical outcomes in periodontology: a pilot study.
Fenwick J; Needleman IG; Moles DR
J Clin Periodontol; 2008 Sep; 35(9):775-82. PubMed ID: 18840153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.
Tierney JF; Stewart LA
Int J Epidemiol; 2005 Feb; 34(1):79-87. PubMed ID: 15561753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.
Devereaux PJ; Choi PT; El-Dika S; Bhandari M; Montori VM; Schünemann HJ; Garg AX; Busse JW; Heels-Ansdell D; Ghali WA; Manns BJ; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Dec; 57(12):1232-6. PubMed ID: 15617948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessing the impact of attrition in randomized controlled trials.
Hewitt CE; Kumaravel B; Dumville JC; Torgerson DJ;
J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Nov; 63(11):1264-70. PubMed ID: 20573482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of Selection Bias on Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Randomized Trials of Oral Health Interventions: A Meta-epidemiological Study.
Saltaji H; Armijo-Olivo S; Cummings GG; Amin M; da Costa BR; Flores-Mir C
J Dent Res; 2018 Jan; 97(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 28813182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using scratch card technology for random allocation concealment in a clinical trial with a crossover design.
Beksinska ME; Joanis C; Smit JA; Pienaar J; Piaggio G
Clin Trials; 2013 Feb; 10(1):125-30. PubMed ID: 23188890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies.
Page MJ; Higgins JP; Clayton G; Sterne JA; Hróbjartsson A; Savović J
PLoS One; 2016; 11(7):e0159267. PubMed ID: 27398997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
Moher D; Pham B; Jones A; Cook DJ; Jadad AR; Moher M; Tugwell P; Klassen TP
Lancet; 1998 Aug; 352(9128):609-13. PubMed ID: 9746022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles.
Shrier I; Boivin JF; Steele RJ; Platt RW; Furlan A; Kakuma R; Brophy J; Rossignol M
Am J Epidemiol; 2007 Nov; 166(10):1203-9. PubMed ID: 17712019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit.
Bassler D; Ferreira-Gonzalez I; Briel M; Cook DJ; Devereaux PJ; Heels-Ansdell D; Kirpalani H; Meade MO; Montori VM; Rozenberg A; Schünemann HJ; Guyatt GH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2007 Sep; 60(9):869-73. PubMed ID: 17689802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Trial sequential analyses of meta-analyses of complications in laparoscopic vs. small-incision cholecystectomy: more randomized patients are needed.
Keus F; Wetterslev J; Gluud C; Gooszen HG; van Laarhoven CJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Mar; 63(3):246-56. PubMed ID: 20004553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of risk of bias in randomized clinical trials in surgery.
Gurusamy KS; Gluud C; Nikolova D; Davidson BR
Br J Surg; 2009 Apr; 96(4):342-9. PubMed ID: 19283747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
