Reporting clinical research: An example of balancing a simple clinical message with data required to help future research

EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 102-103

  Buckley, Nicholas A ^a  

^a The Australian National University   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; EDITORIAL; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION;

EID: 17844400792     PISSN: 17426731     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2005.00719.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Ellis RM, Sprivulis PC, Jelinek GA et al. A double-blind, randomized trial of intravenous versus intramuscular antivenom for Red-back spider envenoming. Emerg. Med. Australas. 2005; 17: 152-6.
2. Sleight P. Debate: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials: fun to look at - but don't believe them!. Curr. Control Trials Cardiovasc. Med. 2000; 1: 25-7.
3. Freemantle N. Interpreting the results of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: should we lock the crazy-aunt in the attic? BMJ 2001; 322: 989-91.
4. Airman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2001; 134: 663-94.
5. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann. Intern. Med. 2003; 138: W1-12.
6. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-900.