Adherence to guidelines for improved quality of data reporting: Where are we today?

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 478-480

  Elia, Nadia ^a,b   Tramèr, Martin R ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^b GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIOLOGY; DATA ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REGISTER; REVIEW;

BIBLIOMETRICS; CHECKLIST; EDITORIAL POLICIES; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 80052709618     PISSN: 02650215     EISSN: 13652346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283461868     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006; 185:263-267. (Pubitemid 44382877)
2. Tramèr MR. CONSORT, QUOROM, and structured abstracts: new rules for authors, new tools for readers. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2001; 18:1-2. (Pubitemid 32142688)
3. Rasmussen ML, Mathiesen O, Dierking G, et al. Multimodal analgesia with gabapentin, ketamine and dexamethasone in combination with paracetamol and ketorolac after hip arthroplasty: a preliminary study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:324-330.
4. Chaparro LE, Gallo T, Gonzalez NJ, et al. Effectiveness of combined haloperidol and dexamethasone versus dexamethasone only for postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk day surgery patients: a randomized blinded trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:192-195.
5. Halpern SH, Darani R, Douglas MJ, et al. Compliance with the CONSORT checklist in obstetric anaesthesia randomised controlled trials. Int J Obstet Anesth 2004; 13:207-214. (Pubitemid 39349700)
6. Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, et al. Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:136-144.