Publications in Anesthesia Journals: Quality and clinical relevance

Anesthesia and Analgesia

Volumn 99, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 1486-1491

  Lauritsen, Jakob ^a,b   Moller, Ann M ^a  

^a GENTOFTE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b NONE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANESTHESIOLOGY; CLINICAL TRIALS; DATA COLLECTION; META-ANALYSIS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 6444225095     PISSN: 00032999     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000136468.92993.CF     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Greenhalgh T. How to read a paper. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
2. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 2001;92:700-9.
3. Mulrow C, Cook D. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions. Philadelphia: BMJ Books, 1995.
4. Cochrane internal notes. Training notes for hand searchers. III - 5, 2003 Available at: http://www.cccg.dk/handsearch.html.
5. Jadad AR. Randomised controlled trials. London: BMJ Books, 1998.
6. Psaty BM, Weiss NS, Furberg CD, et al. Surrogate end points, health outcomes, and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA 1999;282: 786-90.
7. Godlee F, Jefferson T. Peer review in health sciences. London: BMJ Books, 1999.
8. Williams CJ. The pitfalls of narrative reviews in clinical medicine. Ann Oncol 1998;9:601-5.
9. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, et al. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992;268:240-8.
10. Hughes MD, Daniels MJ, Fischl MA, et al. CD4 cell count as a surrogate endpoint in HIV clinical trials: a meta-analysis of studies of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. AIDS 1998;12: 1823-32.
11. Lipicky RJ, Packer M. Role of surrogate end points in the evaluation of drugs for heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22: 179A-84.
12. Hyatt JM, McKinnon PS, Zimmer GS, Schentag JJ. The importance of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic surrogate markers to outcome. Focus on antibacterial agents. Clin Pharmacokinet 1995;28:143-60.
13. Johnston K. What are surrogate outcome measures and why do they fail in clinical research? Neuroepidemiology 1999;18: 167-73.
14. Gotzsche PC, Liberati A, Torri V, Rossetti L. Beware of surrogate outcome measures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1996;12: 238-46.
15. Temple RJ. A regulatory's opinion about surrogate endpoints. New York: Wiley, 1995.
16. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995;274:1800-4.
17. Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ Books, 1995.
18. Gotzsche PC, Krog JW, Moustgaard R. Bibliometric analysis of Danish medical research 1986-1992 [in Danish]. Ugeskr Laeger 1995;157:5075-81.
19. Bloch S, Walter G. The impact factor: time for change. Aust N Z J Psychiatr 2001;35:563-8.
20. Garfield EJ. Impact factor: a brief review. CMAJ 1999;161: 979-80.
21. Seglen PO. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314:498-502.
22. Adams CE, Power A, Frederick K, Lefebvre C. An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care. Psychol Med 1994;24:741-8.
23. Ingelfinger FJ. Peer review in biomedical publication. Am J Med 1974;56:686-92.