Abstract
Our data indicate that the use of summary scores to identify trials of high quality is problematic. Relevant methodological aspects should be assessed individually and their influence on effect sizes explored.
Keywords
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
Empirical Evidence of Bias
<h3>Objective.</h3> —To determine if inadequate approaches to randomized controlled trial design and execution are associated with evidence of bias in estimating treatment effec...
Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta‐analyses
Abstract Meta‐analyses synthesize multiple primary studies and identify patterns of relationships. Differences in primary study methodological quality must be addressed for meta...
Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity
The use of meta-analysis has become increasingly useful for clinical and policy decision making. A recent development in meta-analysis, multiple treatment comparison (MTC) meta-...
Quality of Reporting of Clinical Trials of Dogs and Cats and Associations with Treatment Effects
Background: To address concerns about the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials, and the potential for biased treatment effects in poorly reported trials, medical...
A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology
Abstract In 1996 the CONSORT statement made recommendations on the strict reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCT). This will facilitate the future assessment of such tri...
Publication Info
- Year
- 1999
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 282
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1054-1054
- Citations
- 1960
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
Cite This
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054