RCTs: Legitimate research tool or fancy mathematics?

British Journal of Occupational Therapy

Volumn 65, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 435-436

  Hyde, Paula ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERIENCE; LETTER; MATHEMATICS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE;

EID: 0036741995     PISSN: 03080226     EISSN: 14776006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/030802260206500910     Document Type: Letter

References (8)

1. Bannigan K (2002) EBP, RCTs and a climate of mutual respect (Letter). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(8), 391-92.
2. Boyle D (2000) The tyranny of numbers: why counting can't make us happy. London: Harper Collins.
3. Copley J (2002) RCTs: continuing the debate (Letter). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(7), 346-47.
4. Double D (2000) Blinding science. Openmind, 102, 19.
5. Harrison S (2001) New labour and the medical labour process (Keynote paper). Evaluating New Labour's health policies. Study day, 24 March. London: City University.
6. Lindbaek M, Hjortdahl P (1999) How do two meta-analyses of similar data reach opposite conclusions? British Medical Journal, 318(7187), 873.
7. McLean F, Jones D (2002) RCTs: need for wider debate (Letter). British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(6), 294.
8. Polanyi M (1962). Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.