SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Quality of Controlled Clinical Trials on Glaucoma and Intraocular High Pressure
8 references·1 citing·32 second hop
Quality of Controlled Clinical Trials on Glaucoma and Intraocular High Pressure (2005)Quality of Controlled Clinical Trials on …The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revise…Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials (2001)Participation of epidemiologi…How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature? (2000)How Well Are Randomized Contr…Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: Predictors of quality (1999)Randomized clinical trials in…Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy (1999)Impact of Study Quality on Ou…Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Does quality of reports of ra…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. D…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasConsolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (2010)Consolidated standards of rep…Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Citation bias of hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials (2002)Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols (2012)Type II error and statistical power in reports of small animal clinical trials (2014)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)Essential Epidemiology: An Introduction for Students and Health Professionals (2012)A systematic review of cluster randomised trials in residential facilities for older people suggests how to improve quality (2013)Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations (2013)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture (2001)Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned (2006)Stuttering Treatment Research 1970–2005: I. Systematic Review Incorporating Trial Quality Assessment of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Related Approaches (2006)The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials (1998)Discrepancy between published report and actual conduct of randomized clinical trials (2002)Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review (2005)Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 2: Randomized Controlled Trials (2008)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials (2001)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)CONSORT (2014)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
  • 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
  • 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials5,372 cited
  • 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
  • 1999Impact of Study Quality on Outcome in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Homeopathy204 cited
  • 2000How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?126 cited
  • 1999Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: Predictors of quality119 cited
  • 2001Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials57 cited

Cited by

  • 2010Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials8 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work