Quality of controlled clinical trials on glaucoma and intraocular high pressure

Journal of Glaucoma

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 190-195

  Llorca, Javier ^a,d   Martínez Sanz, Fernando ^b   Prieto Salceda, Dolores ^a   Fariñas Álvarez, Concepción ^a   Chinchón, M Verónica ^a   Quinones, Dolores ^a   Delgado Rodríguez, Miguel ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CANTABRIA   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO MARQUÉS DE VALDECILLA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF JAÉN   (Spain)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CANTABRIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE ABNORMALITY; MASKING; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS; GLAUCOMA; HUMANS; INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE; OCULAR HYPERTENSION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 18744389164     PISSN: 10570829     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000159124.57112.69     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Quinones D, Llorca J, Dierssen T, et al. Quality of published clinical trials on asthma. J Asthma. 2003;40:709-719.
2. Kjaergard LL, Nikolova D, Gluud C. Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: predictors of quality. Hepatology. 1999;30:1134-1138.
3. Cheng K, Smyth RL, Motley J, et al. Randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis (1966-1997) categorized by time, design, and intervention. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2000;29:1-7.
4. Adetugbo K, Williams H. How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? Arch Dermatol. 2000;136:381-385.
5. Linde K, Scholz M, Ramirez G, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:631-636.
6. Altman DG, Bland JM. Treatment allocation in controlled trials. Why randomise? BMJ. 1999;318:1209.
7. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609-613.
8. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
9. Moher D, Dulbegr CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, simple size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1994;272:122-124.
10. Day SJ, Altman DG. Blinding in clinical trials and other studies. BMJ. 2000;321:504.
11. Velasco HE. Triple blinding in epidemiologic studies. BMJ (electronic version) 19 August 2000.
12. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. for the CONSORT group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-1194.
13. Delgado-Rodríguez M, Ruiz-Canela M, Irala J, et al. Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:569-572.