Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.Sample size calculation for meta-epidemiological studies
Bruno Giraudeau et al.
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE (2016)
Are current standards of reporting quality for clinical trials sufficient in addressing important sources of bias?
Edward J. Mills et al.
CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS (2015)
What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study
Susan Armijo-Olivo et al.
BMJ OPEN (2015)
Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
Iosief Abraha et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2015)
Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
Iosief Abraha et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2015)
Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors
Asbjorn Hrobjartsson et al.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY (2014)
Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies
Asbjorn Hrobjartsson et al.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY (2014)
Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
Lisa Hartling et al.
PLOS ONE (2014)
Methodological characteristics and treatment effect sizes in oral health randomised controlled trials: Is there a relationship? Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study
Humam Saltaji et al.
BMJ OPEN (2014)
Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study
Julie B. Hansen et al.
BMJ OPEN (2014)
Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
A. Dossing et al.
BMJ Open (2014)
Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors
Asbjorn Hrobjartsson et al.
CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL (2013)
Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study
Anna Chaimani et al.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY (2013)
No evidence for intervention-dependent influence of methodological features on treatment effect
Wilco C. H. Jacobs et al.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY (2013)
Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: a systematic review
Susanne Unverzagt et al.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY (2013)
Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews
Claire L. Vale et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2013)
Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment
Orestis A. Panagiotou et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2013)
Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
Agnes Dechartres et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2013)
How should we evaluate the risk of bias of physical therapy trials?: a psychometric and meta-epidemiological approach towards developing guidelines for the design, conduct, and reporting of RCTs in Physical Therapy (PT) area: a study protocol
Susan Armijo-Olivo et al.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (2013)
Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials
Jelena Savovic et al.
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2012)
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies
J. Savovic et al.
HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (2012)
Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols
Rahul Mhaskar et al.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY (2012)
Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors
Asbjorn Hrobjartsson et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2012)
Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
Aida Bafeta et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2012)
Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study of PDE-5 inhibitors
Frederik Feys et al.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS (2012)
Single-Center Trials Show Larger Treatment Effects Than Multicenter Trials: Evidence From a Meta-epidemiologic Study
Agnes Dechartres et al.
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2011)
Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study
Peter Herbison et al.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY (2011)
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Julian P. T. Higgins et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2011)
Stopping Randomized Trials Early for Benefit and Estimation of Treatment Effects Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis
Dirk Bassler et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2010)
The Importance of Allocation Concealment and Patient Blinding in Osteoarthritis Trials: A Meta-Epidemiologic Study
Eveline Nueesch et al.
ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATISM-ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH (2009)
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
David Moher et al.
PLOS MEDICINE (2009)
The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study
Eveline Nueesch et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2009)
Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses (vol 135, pg982, 2001)
Lise L. Kjaergard et al.
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2008)
Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes:: meta-epidemiological study
Lesley Wood et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2008)
Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials
J. Pildal et al.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY (2007)
Multivariable modelling for meta-epidemiological assessment of the association between trial quality and treatment effects estimated in randomized clinical trials
V. Siersma et al.
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE (2007)
Comparison of large versus smaller randomized trials for mental health-related interventions
DG Contopoulos-Ioannidis et al.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY (2005)
An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods
PJ Devereaux et al.
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY (2004)
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
JPT Higgins et al.
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (2003)
Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research
JAC Sterne et al.
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE (2002)
Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials
EM Balk et al.
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (2002)
Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses
LL Kjaergard et al.
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE (2001)
Share Paper
