Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology: Table 1

8 references·16 citing·37 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
1981A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial1,349 cited
1994Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals512 cited
1982Reporting on Methods in Clinical Trials509 cited
1989Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis338 cited
1994A Proposal for Structured Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials307 cited
1987Meta‐analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: Control of bias and comparison with large co‐operative trials246 cited
1980Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials206 cited

Cited by

2006Standards of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in General Surgery161 cited
1996Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines154 cited
2007The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: A systematic review142 cited
2008Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 2: Randomized Controlled Trials123 cited
2001Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?

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

117 cited

2011Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional study111 cited

2009LOST to follow-up Information in Trials (LOST-IT): a protocol on the potential impact90 cited

2006Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: The way forward67 cited

1998Beyond CONSORT: Need for Improved Reporting Standards for Clinical Trials64 cited

1998Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology58 cited

1997The quest for unbiased research: Randomized clinical trials and the CONSORT reporting guidelines49 cited

2006Randomised clinical trials in plastic surgery: Survey of output and quality of reporting46 cited

2006Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility44 cited

2017A systematic review found that deviations from intention-to-treat are common in randomized trials and systematic reviews40 cited

2000Assessing allocation concealment and blinding in randomised controlled trials: why bother?37 cited

2012Methodological and Ethical Quality of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Gastrointestinal Surgery33 cited