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.
130 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23180807)
41. Nursing process outcome linkage research: issues, current status, and health policy implications. Maas ML; Delaney C Med Care; 2004 Feb; 42(2 Suppl):II40-8. PubMed ID: 14734941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Methodologic issues in international rheumatologic clinical epidemiology. Tugwell P; Bombardier C J Rheumatol Suppl; 1983 Nov; 10():65-7. PubMed ID: 6607348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. 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]
44. Scientific inquiry. Study designs for program evaluation: how do we know what works? Cook PF J Spec Pediatr Nurs; 2009 Jan; 14(1):70-2. PubMed ID: 19161577 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. [Proposed design for a randomized effectiveness study in social medicine]. Michel E Gesundheitswesen; 1998; 60(8-9):482-5. PubMed ID: 9816765 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Making sense of the evidence using comparative effectiveness to guide clinical decision making, policy and coverage. Carlos RC; Cronin P Acad Radiol; 2011 Sep; 18(9):1065-6. PubMed ID: 21820633 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. More appropriate evaluation methods for community-level health interventions. Introduction to the special issue. McKinlay JB Eval Rev; 1996 Jun; 20(3):237-43. PubMed ID: 10182203 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Contemporary challenges in deriving summary estimates of comparative effectiveness using meta-analysis. Mills EJ Value Health; 2010 Jun; 13 Suppl 1():S15-7. PubMed ID: 20618789 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Another point of view: superiority, noninferiority, and the role of active comparators. Kraemer HC J Clin Psychiatry; 2011 Oct; 72(10):1350-2. PubMed ID: 22075101 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Practical problems in interim analyses, with particular regard to estimation. Pocock SJ; Hughes MD Control Clin Trials; 1989 Dec; 10(4 Suppl):209S-221S. PubMed ID: 2605969 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Epidemiology, comparative effectiveness research, and the National Institutes of Health: forces for health. Lauer MS; Hodes R Epidemiology; 2011 Sep; 22(5):625-8. PubMed ID: 21811109 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Efficacy vs. effectiveness in psychiatric research. Summerfelt WT; Meltzer HY Psychiatr Serv; 1998 Jun; 49(6):834-5. PubMed ID: 9634169 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. From methods to policy: past as prologue: how comparative effectiveness research became patient-centered outcomes research. Rich EC J Comp Eff Res; 2012 Nov; 1(6):475-7. PubMed ID: 24236464 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. How to design efficient cluster randomised trials. Hemming K; Eldridge S; Forbes G; Weijer C; Taljaard M BMJ; 2017 Jul; 358():j3064. PubMed ID: 28710062 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Specifying a Conceptual Treatment Choice Relationship Before Analysis Is Necessary for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Cozad MJ; Chapman CG; Brooks JM Med Care; 2017 Feb; 55(2):94-96. PubMed ID: 27547948 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Great expectations, or do we ask too much from community-level interventions? Fishbein M Am J Public Health; 1996 Aug; 86(8):1075-6. PubMed ID: 8712261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Nursing research challenges within health care reform. McCormick K J Prof Nurs; 1993; 9(4):191. PubMed ID: 8366239 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]