Comparison of basic methods in clinical studies and in vitro tissue and cell culture studies reported in three anaesthesia journals

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 295-298

  Watters, M P R ^a   Goodman, N W ^a  

^a SOUTHMEAD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Anaesthesia, audit; Anaesthesia, journals; Research, bias; Research, clinical; Research, laboratory

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CELL CULTURE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZATION; SAMPLE; TISSUE CULTURE;

EID: 0032927840     PISSN: 00070912     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bja/82.2.295     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994; 308: 283-4
2. Altman DG, Dore CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990; 335: 149-53
3. Singer DC, Upton RP. Guidelines for Laboratory Quality Auditing. Milwaukee: ASQC Quality Press, 1993; 82
4. Garner WY, Barge MS, Ussary JP. Good Laboratory Practice Standards: Applications for Field and Laboratory Studies. Washington DC: American Chemical Society, 1992; 61
5. Sitthi-amorn C, Poshyachinda V. Bias. Lancet 1993; 342: 286-8
6. Yentis S. The struggle for power in anaesthetic studies. Anaesthesia 1996; 51:413-14
7. Silverman WA. Human Experimentation: A Guided Step into the Unknown. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985; 64-6
8. Feynman RP. 'Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!'. London: Unwin, 1986; 343
9. Wilmut I, Schnieke AE, McWhir J, Kind AJ, Campbell KHS. Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 1997; 385: 810-13
10. American Statistical Association. Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice (draft for general comment) 1998 (http://www.amstat.org)