Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials

British Medical Journal

Volumn 323, Issue 7303, 2001, Pages 42-46

  Juni P ^a   Altman, D G ^b   Egger, M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED STUDY; EMPIRICISM; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0035822324     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.0
2. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis
3. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis
4. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists
5. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trial for meta-analysis
6. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
7. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings
8. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching
9. Treatment allocation in controlled trials: Why randomise?
10. Randomisation. Essential for reducing bias
11. Amniotomy or oxytocin for induction of labor. Re-analysis of a randomized controlled trial
12. Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines
13. Subverting randomization in controlled trials
14. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial
15. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials
16. Influence of adherence to treatment and response of cholesterol on mortality in the CDP
17. The randomized clinical trial: Bias in analysis
18. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials
19. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
20. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
21. "Garbage in - Garbage out"? Assessment of the quality of controlled trials in meta-analyses published in leading journals
22. Quality of randomised clinical trials affects estimates of intervention efficacy
23. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials
24. Antihypertensive drugs in very old people: A subgroup meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
25. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: Collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients
26. Controversies in meta-analysis: The case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction
27. Putting trials on trial - The costs and consequences of small trials in depression: A systematic review of methodology
28. A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer
29. Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century
30. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials
31. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials
32. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: Implications for the conduct of meta-analyses
33. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial
34. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading
35. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy
36. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis