A simple method for evaluating the clinical literature

Family Practice Management

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 47-52

  Flaherty, Robert J ^a,b  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; RISK REDUCTION; ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; GENERAL PRACTICE; INTERNET; LITERATURE; MEDLINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; TECHNIQUE; UNITED STATES;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; FAMILY PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNET; LITERATURE; METHODS; PUBMED; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 3242803799     PISSN: 10695648     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Miser WF. Critical appraisal of the literature. J Amer Board Fam Pract. 1999;12(4):315-333.
2. Guyatt GH, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA. 1993;270(21):2598-2601.
3. Lepor H, et al. The efficacy of terazosin, finasteride or both in benign prostatic hyperplasia. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(8):533-539.
4. Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970;30:607-610.
5. Nystrom L, et al, Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet. 2002;359(9310):909-919.
6. Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ. 1998;317:307-312.