Doug Altman's prescience in recognising the need to reduce biases before tackling imprecision in systematic reviews.
作者信息
Chalmers Iain
机构信息
James Lind Library, Oxford, UK.
出版信息
J R Soc Med. 2020 Mar;113(3):119-122. doi: 10.1177/0141076820908496.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Doug Altman's prescience in recognising the need to reduce biases before tackling imprecision in systematic reviews.道格·阿尔特曼在认识到在解决系统评价中的不精确性之前需要减少偏差方面具有先见之明。
J R Soc Med. 2020 Mar;113(3):119-122. doi: 10.1177/0141076820908496.
2
Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review.著名医学期刊发表的系统评价中的纳入标准：一项方法学综述。
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;21(6):1052-8. doi: 10.1111/jep.12448. Epub 2015 Sep 14.
3
Reducing Waste and Increasing the Usability of Psychiatry Research: The Family of EQUATOR Reporting Guidelines and One of Its Newest Members: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.减少精神医学研究的浪费并提高其可用性：EQUATOR报告指南系列及其最新成员之一：PRISMA-DTA声明。
Can J Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;63(8):509-512. doi: 10.1177/0706743718773705. Epub 2018 Apr 25.
4
Living systematic reviews at .在……的实时系统评价
BMJ. 2020 Jul 30;370:m2925. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2925.
5
Advancing research through systematic reviews and meta-analysis: workshop experience.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008 May;18(5):323-4.
6
Doug Altman's legacy to Cochrane and evidence synthesis.道格·阿尔特曼对考克兰协作网及证据综合的贡献。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 14;8(9):ED000127. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000127.
7
What Makes Systematic Reviews Systematic and Why are They the Highest Level of Evidence?是什么让系统评价具有系统性，以及为什么它们是最高级别的证据？
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2018 Feb;25(1):27-30. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2017.1337913. Epub 2017 Sep 11.
8
Effective plots to assess bias and precision in method comparison studies.评估方法比较研究中偏倚和精度的有效方案。
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1650-1660. doi: 10.1177/0962280216666667. Epub 2016 Oct 4.
9
Call for papers: A special issue on tackling emerging infectious diseases.征稿启事：关于应对新发传染病的特刊
Mol Ther. 2021 Aug 4;29(8):2387. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.07.005. Epub 2021 Jul 23.
10
On the road to make KJA's review process robust, transparent, and credible: retracted study in systematic review.在使KJA的评审过程稳健、透明且可信的道路上：系统评价中的撤稿研究。
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2022 Jun;75(3):197-199. doi: 10.4097/kja.22260. Epub 2022 May 11.
引用本文的文献
1
All roads lead to coronavirus.一切都指向了冠状病毒。
J R Soc Med. 2020 Mar;113(3):91. doi: 10.1177/0141076820911516.
本文引用的文献
1
Some reflections on the evolution of meta-analysis.对荟萃分析演变的一些思考。
Res Synth Methods. 2015 Sep;6(3):265-7. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1156.
2
The Dublin randomized controlled trial of intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring.都柏林产时胎儿心率监测随机对照试验
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985 Jul 1;152(5):524-39. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(85)90619-2.
3
The medical review article: state of the science.医学综述文章：科学现状
Ann Intern Med. 1987 Mar;106(3):485-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485.
4
Guidelines for reading literature reviews.文献综述阅读指南。
CMAJ. 1988 Apr 15;138(8):697-703.
5
Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane's agenda.了解阿奇·科克伦的议程。
BMJ. 1992 Oct 3;305(6857):786-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.305.6857.786.
6
Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples.需要对每位患者进行长期观察的随机临床试验的设计与分析。II. 分析与示例。
Br J Cancer. 1977 Jan;35(1):1-39. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1977.1.
7
Clinical trial methodology.临床试验方法学。
Biomedicine. 1978 Sep;28 Spec No:24-36.
Zotero 插件