• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals.

作者信息

Hewitt Catherine, Hahn Seokyung, Torgerson David J, Watson Judith, Bland J Martin

机构信息

York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD.

出版信息

BMJ. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1057-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38413.576713.AE. Epub 2005 Mar 10.

DOI:10.1136/bmj.38413.576713.AE
PMID:15760970
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC557225/
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals.分配隐藏的充分性及报告情况：对四种综合医学期刊近期发表试验的综述
BMJ. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1057-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38413.576713.AE. Epub 2005 Mar 10.
2
The methodologic quality of randomization as assessed from reports of trials in specialist and general medical journals.从专业医学期刊和普通医学期刊的试验报告中评估随机化的方法学质量。
Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1995 Aug 26;Doc No 197:[81 paragraphs].
3
Allocation concealment: a methodological review.分配隐藏：方法学综述。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2013 Aug;19(4):708-12. doi: 10.1111/jep.12032. Epub 2013 May 7.
4
The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals.试验摘要的报告质量欠佳：对主要综合医学期刊的调查。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):387-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.013. Epub 2008 Nov 17.
5
Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward.提高心胸外科随机对照试验报告的质量：前进的方向。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006 Aug;132(2):233-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.10.056.
6
Chinese authors do need CONSORT: reporting quality assessment for five leading Chinese medical journals.中国作者确实需要CONSORT：对五家中国顶级医学期刊的报告质量评估
Contemp Clin Trials. 2008 Sep;29(5):727-31. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2008.05.003. Epub 2008 May 18.
7
Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.评估发表于妇产科期刊的对照试验报告中的随机化质量。
JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):125-8.
8
Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals.临床眼科期刊中随机对照试验关键方法学项目的报告质量
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007 Nov-Dec;14(6):390-8. doi: 10.1080/09286580701344399.
9
An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently.一项对认可CONSORT的普通医学期刊和专业期刊的分析发现，报告要求并未得到始终如一的执行。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Jul;58(7):662-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.004.
10
Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study.试验方案与已发表报告中分配隐藏描述的比较：队列研究。
BMJ. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1049. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F. Epub 2005 Apr 7.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of a Run-In Period on Estimated Treatment Effects in Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analytic Review.纳入期对心血管随机临床试验中估计治疗效果的影响：一项荟萃分析评价。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Oct 18;11(20):e023061. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.023061. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
2
Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedic clinical trials: a meta-research study.运动医学和矫形外科临床试验中的报告和透明研究实践：一项元研究。
BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 8;12(8):e059347. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059347.
3
A Retrospective Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on Traumatic Brain Injury: Evaluation of CONSORT Item Adherence.创伤性脑损伤随机对照试验的回顾性分析：CONSORT 条目依从性评估
Brain Sci. 2021 Nov 13;11(11):1504. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11111504.
4
Meta-Analysis of Therapy of Cinobufacini Capsule Adjunct with First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Advanced NSCLC.华蟾素胶囊联合一线铂类化疗治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌的Meta分析
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021 Aug 21;2021:5596415. doi: 10.1155/2021/5596415. eCollection 2021.
5
Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance.肥胖与营养研究中随机化实施、分析和报告中的错误：避免方法指南。
Int J Obes (Lond). 2021 Nov;45(11):2335-2346. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-00909-z. Epub 2021 Jul 29.
6
Quality Assessment and Relevant Clinical Impact of Randomized Controlled Trials of Varicocele: Next Step to Good-Quality Randomized Controlled Trial of Varicocele Treatment.精索静脉曲张随机对照试验的质量评估及相关临床影响：精索静脉曲张治疗高质量随机对照试验的下一步
World J Mens Health. 2022 Apr;40(2):290-298. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.200167. Epub 2021 Jun 1.
7
Compliance of Published Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effect of Physical Activity on Primary Dysmenorrhea with the Consortium's Integrated Report on Clinical Trials Statement: A Critical Appraisal of the Literature.已发表的关于体育活动对原发性痛经影响的随机对照试验与该联盟临床试验综合报告声明的合规性：文献的批判性评价
Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2020 Nov 7;25(6):445-454. doi: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_223_19. eCollection 2020 Nov-Dec.
8
Detecting the extent of control over selection bias relating to oral health and otorhinolaryngology: cross-sectional study.检测口腔健康和耳鼻咽喉科相关选择偏倚的控制程度：横断面研究。
Sao Paulo Med J. 2020 Jun;138(3):184-189. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2019.0458.R1.04022020. Epub 2020 Jun 22.
9
Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature.肿瘤学研究人员是否遵循可重复和透明的原则？对已发表肿瘤学文献的横断面调查。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 31;9(12):e033962. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033962.
10
Early psychological intervention following recent trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.近期创伤后的早期心理干预：一项系统评价与荟萃分析。
Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019 Dec 6;10(1):1695486. doi: 10.1080/20008198.2019.1695486. eCollection 2019.

本文引用的文献

1
Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.医疗保健中的系统评价：评估对照临床试验的质量。
BMJ. 2001 Jul 7;323(7303):42-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42.
2
The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.报告随机试验的修订版CONSORT声明：解释与详述。
Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 17;134(8):663-94. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.
3
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.偏倚的实证证据。与对照试验中治疗效果估计相关的方法学质量维度。
JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408.
4
Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials.
N Engl J Med. 1983 Dec 1;309(22):1358-61. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198312013092204.
5
An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials.在对照随机临床试验中，治疗差异与质量评分可能关系的实证研究。
Control Clin Trials. 1990 Oct;11(5):339-52. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(90)90175-2.