The Cochrane Collaboration

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

Volumn 384, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 432-436

  Altman, Douglas G ^a   Burton, Martin J ^b  

^a IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

^b RADCLIFFE INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES; ORGANIZATIONS, NONPROFIT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SURGERY;

EID: 0032716761     PISSN: 14352443     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s004230050226     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Cochrane AL (1989) Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections on health services. Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972 (reprinted in 1989 in association with the British Medical Journal), London
2. Cochrane AL (1979) 1931-1971: A critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. In: Medicines for the year 2000. Office of Health Economics, London, pp 1-11
3. Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, (eds) (1989) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. Cochrane AL (1989) Foreword. In: Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC (eds) Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford University Press, Oxford
5. Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC (1992) Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda. BMJ 305:786-788
6. Anonymous (1992) Editorial. Cochrane's legacy. Lancet 340:1131-1132
7. Anonymous (1999) The Cochrane collaboration. The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CDROM]. Issue 1. Update Software, Oxford (updated quarterly)
8. Decks JJ (1998) Systematic reviews of published evidence: miracles or minefields? Ann Oncol 9:703-709
9. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D (1998) Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280:278-280
10. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629-634
11. Kunz R, Oxman AD (1998) The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ 317:1185-1190
12. Hall JC, Mills B, Nguyen H, Hall JL (1996) Methodologic standards in surgical trials. Surgery 119:466-472
13. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz K, Simel D, Stroup D (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 276:637-639
14. Baum M (1999) Reflections on randomised controlled trials in surgery. Lancet 353[suppl 1]:S6-S8
15. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377-384
16. Naylor CD (1995) Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidencebased medicine. Lancet 45:840-842
17. Shapiro S (1995) Book review. JAMA 274:667-668