Research design and conduct - Good practice and reporting

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 461-462

  Roe, Brenda ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; EDITORIAL; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HEALTH CARE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; NURSING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARD;

EID: 4444299759     PISSN: 03092402     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03135.x     Document Type: Editorial

References (7)

1. Devane D., Begley C. & Clarke M. (2004) How many do I need? Basic principles of sample size estimation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 47(3), 297-302.
2. Huwiler-Muntener K., Juni P., Junker C. & Egger M. (2002) Quality of reporting randomised trials as a measure of methodological quality. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, 1987-1991.
3. Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., Cook D.J., Jadad A.R., Moher M., Jones A., Pham B. & Klassen T.P. (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352, 609-613.
4. Moher D., Schulz K.F. & Altman D. (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 285, 1987-1991.
5. MRC (2004) Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice in Clinical Trials. Medical Research Council, London, UK. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/ pdf-ctg.pdf. last accessed 10/03/2004.
6. Soares H.P., Daniels S., Kumar A., Clarke M., Scott C., Swann S. & Djulbegovic B. (2004) Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. British Medical Journal 328, 22-24.
7. Webb C. (2004) Editor's Note: Analysis of papers published in JAN in 2002. Journal of Advanced Nursing 45, 229-231.