• 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

相似文献

1
Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge.评估Cochrane系统评价中纳入的随机临床试验的偏倚风险：原因容易理解，方法却是一项挑战。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;2013(4):ED000058. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000058.
2
Agreement in Risk of Bias Assessment Between RobotReviewer and Human Reviewers: An Evaluation Study on Randomised Controlled Trials in Nursing-Related Cochrane Reviews.机器人评估者与人工评估者在偏倚风险评估中的一致性：一项针对 Cochrane 护理相关综述中随机对照试验的评估研究。
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2021 Mar;53(2):246-254. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12628. Epub 2021 Feb 8.
3
The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews.随机对照试验中结局报告偏倚对一系列系统评价的影响。
BMJ. 2010 Feb 15;340:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365.
4
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
5
Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study.在 Cochrane 综述中纳入的 20920 项随机对照试验中，研究随时间推移而出现的报告质量差和方法学不足的演变：研究中的研究。
BMJ. 2017 Jun 8;357:j2490. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2490.
6
Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.Cochrane 综述中的偏倚风险评估的重复评价一致性存在差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Apr;120:25-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.12.016. Epub 2019 Dec 19.
7
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Cochrane 协作网评估随机试验偏倚风险的工具。
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
8
[Risk of bias by blinded vs unblinded evaluation of articles in systematic reviews].[系统评价中对文章进行盲法与非盲法评估的偏倚风险]
Ugeskr Laeger. 2013 Apr 1;175(14):951-4.
9
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.在医疗保健干预随机试验的系统评价中，因对结果和分析进行选择性纳入及报告而产生的偏倚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 1;2014(10):MR000035. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2.
10
Implications for Research: Getting the Most out of Cochrane Reviews.对研究的启示：充分利用Cochrane系统评价
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 7;1(12):ED000037. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000037.

引用本文的文献

1
Methodological Challenges in Randomized Controlled Trials of mHealth Interventions: Cross-Sectional Survey Study and Consensus-Based Recommendations.移动健康干预随机对照试验中的方法学挑战：横断面调查研究与基于共识的建议
J Med Internet Res. 2024 Dec 19;26:e53187. doi: 10.2196/53187.
2
Effects of L-carnitine supplementation on lipid profile in adult patients under hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.补充左旋肉碱对血液透析成年患者血脂谱的影响：随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Dec 2;11:1454921. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1454921. eCollection 2024.
3
Quantitative assessment of baseline imbalances in evolocumab and alirocumab trials: a meta-epidemiological study.依洛尤单抗和阿利西尤单抗试验中基线失衡的定量评估：一项荟萃流行病学研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Jun 22;24(1):137. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02260-z.
4
Echinacea Reduces Antibiotics by Preventing Respiratory Infections: A Meta-Analysis (ERA-PRIMA).紫锥菊通过预防呼吸道感染减少抗生素使用：一项荟萃分析（ERA-PRIMA）。
Antibiotics (Basel). 2024 Apr 16;13(4):364. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics13040364.
5
Discrepancies in Ratings of Behavioral Healthcare Interventions Among Evidence-Based Program Resources Websites.循证项目资源网站对行为保健干预措施的评级存在差异。
Inquiry. 2023 Jan-Dec;60:469580231186836. doi: 10.1177/00469580231186836.
6
Applying dyadic digital psychological interventions for reducing caregiver burden in the illness context: a systematic review and a meta-analysis protocol.应用对偶数字心理干预减轻疾病背景下照顾者负担的系统评价和荟萃分析方案。
BMJ Open. 2023 May 10;13(5):e070279. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070279.
7
Do acupuncture trials have lower risk of bias over the last five decades? A methodological study of 4 715 randomized controlled trials.过去五十年间，针灸试验的偏倚风险是否更低？4715 项随机对照试验的方法学研究。
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 10;15(6):e0234491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234491. eCollection 2020.
8
[Risk of bias in controlled clinical trials].[对照临床试验中的偏倚风险]
HNO. 2020 Apr;68(4):291-300. doi: 10.1007/s00106-020-00835-y.
9
[Risk of bias in controlled clinical trials].[对照临床试验中的偏倚风险]
Radiologe. 2019 Sep;59(9):833-842. doi: 10.1007/s00117-019-0572-z.
10
Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.纳入多个 Cochrane 系统评价的随机对照试验偏倚风险评估存在分歧：使用横断面设计的研究研究。
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 1;9(4):e028382. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028382.

本文引用的文献

1
Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment.欠发达国家和发达国家随机试验中的比较效应大小：meta 流行病学评估。
BMJ. 2013 Feb 12;346:f707. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f707.
2
Industry sponsorship and research outcome.行业赞助与研究成果。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Dec 12;12:MR000033. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.
3
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials.报告的研究设计特征对随机对照试验干预效果估计的影响。
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Sep 18;157(6):429-38. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-6-201209180-00537.
4
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Cochrane 协作网评估随机试验偏倚风险的工具。
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
5
Metabias: a challenge for comparative effectiveness research.代谢偏倚：比较效果研究面临的一项挑战。
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):61-2. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00010.
6
Single-center trials show larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: evidence from a meta-epidemiologic study.单中心试验比多中心试验显示出更大的治疗效果：来自荟萃流行病学研究的证据。
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):39-51. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00006.
7
Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.提前停止随机试验以获得益处和估计治疗效果：系统评价和荟萃回归分析。
JAMA. 2010 Mar 24;303(12):1180-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.310.
8
Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study.随机对照试验的偏倚风险与质量评估：横断面研究
BMJ. 2009 Oct 19;339:b4012. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4012.
9
Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies.Cochrane系统评价组关于研究中偏倚风险评估的建议。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Apr 21;8:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-22.
10
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.随机试验中结果选择性报告的实证证据：方案与已发表文章的比较。
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.

Assessing risk of bias in randomised clinical trials included in Cochrane Reviews: the why is easy, the how is a challenge.

作者信息

Hróbjartsson Asbjørn, Boutron Isabelle, Turner Lucy, Altman Douglas G, Moher David

机构信息

Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;2013(4):ED000058. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000058.

DOI:10.1002/14651858.ED000058
PMID:23728703
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10846371/
Abstract
摘要