 |
|
Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals
Islands in Search of Continents?
Michael Clarke, DPhil;
Iain Chalmers, MSc
JAMA. 1998;280:280-282.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context.— Several journals have adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to make assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) easier. One of these recommendations is that the trial's results be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.
Objective.— To assess the extent to which reports of RCTs published in 5 general medical journals have discussed new results in light of all available evidence.
Design.— Assessment of the discussion sections in all 26 reports of RCTs published during May 1997 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine.
Main Outcome Measure.— The inclusion or mention of a systematic review in the discussion section of each article.
Results.— In only 2 articles were the RCT's results discussed in the context of an updated systematic review of earlier trials. In a further 4 articles, references were made to relevant systematic reviews, but no attempts were made to integrate the results of the new trials in updated versions of these reviews. One article was probably the first published trial to address the question studied. The remaining 19 articles included no evidence that any systematic attempt had been made to set the reported trial's results in the context of previous trials.
Conclusion.— There is little evidence that journals have adequately implemented the CONSORT recommendation that results of an RCT be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.
INTRODUCTION
SEVERAL MAJOR health care journals have already adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to make it easier for readers to assess the quality of controlled trials.1 This is the first joint attempt by biomedical journals to improve the quality of reports of controlled trials, a topic of research for 4 decades.2 No other category of biomedical report has received such sustained attention, and this reflects the practical importance of controlled trials in guiding decisions in health care.
Previous research has highlighted deficiencies in descriptions of the materials and methods used and the analysis and presentation of results.2 Like most similar articles before it, the CONSORT statement concentrates on these 2 elements of reports of controlled trials. By contrast, the quality of introduction and discussion sections in trial reports has received little systematic scrutiny. The typical discussion section usually addresses a number of dimensions, but, crucially, it is in this section that readers will look for an answer to Bradford Hill's "bottom line" question for any research article: "What does it mean, anyway?"3 This was recognized in the CONSORT statement, which included the recommendation that trialists should "state general interpretation of the data in light of the totality (our emphasis) of the available evidence."1
Other research has illustrated how selective citation of previous research in the discussion sections of research articles can be biased. Studies that have yielded relatively dramatic results are more likely to be cited in reports of subsequent similar studies than previous studies yielding unremarkable point estimates of effects.4 In addition, authors from a particular country or specialty have been shown to selectively cite material generated from within that country5-6 or specialty.7-8
Ideally, the discussion section of the report of a new trial should involve the presentation of an up-to-date systematic review,9 as was done, for example, in the 1986 article on the First International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-1).10 To show how closely reports of controlled trials reflect this ideal more than a decade after ISIS-1, we assessed the discussion sections of all reports of randomized trials published in May 1997 in 5 general medical journals. This month was chosen to allow as up-to-date an assessment as possible and without prior knowledge of thearticles to be published. We concentrated on how well the discussion sections in these articles had made a systematic attempt to set the results of the reported trial in the context of the totality of the other relevant existing evidence.
METHODS
An article was eligible for inclusion as a trial if it met the following criteria: (1) It was published during May 1997 as a full article (ie, not in the editorials, news, or correspondence sections of the journals) in 1 of the following journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet , and The New England Journal of Medicine (all except the last of these journals have adopted the CONSORT statement). (2) On the basis of the best available information, "the individuals (or other units) followed in the trial were assigned prospectively to one of 2 (or more) alternative forms of health care using random allocation or some quasi-random method of allocation (such as alternation, date of birth, or case record number)," that is, randomized and quasi-randomized trials, as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration.11
If the discussion section of an eligible article contained the results of an attempt to identify and consider all other similar trials (if an attempt either was or was not made to combine their results quantitatively with those of the newly reported trial), it was classified as a systematic review. Relevant issues of the 5 journals were ordered using a list of random numbers. One of the authors (M.C.) searched the issues in this order and the other (I.C.) searched them in reverse order. They independently identified articles that met the eligibility criteria.
The authors independently assessed the discussion section of each eligible article to decide whether an attempt had been made to integrate the results of the new trial into a systematic review, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Such a review could have been either done previously or done especially for the trial article by the authors of that article.
Disagreements on both assessments were resolved by discussion between the authors. Any eligible articles that were initially identified by only one of the authors were read and assessed for the inclusion of systematic reviews by the other before this aspect was discussed.
Reports of other trials that seem to have addressed the question concerned in the index article were sought by searching the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register.12 Advice was also sought from others with content expertise.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the number of issues of each of the 5 selected journals in May 1997 and the distribution of the articles identified.13-38 Twenty-six articles were identified that met the eligibility criteria, and all articles were identified by both of us independently. One additional article was identified by one of us (M.C.) as possibly eligible, but was rejected following discussion.
|
|
|
|
Number of Issues of Each Journal and Number of Randomized Controlled Trials Identified, May 1997
|
|
|
Six of the 26 eligible articles claimed to report the first trial addressing a particular question. However, following a search of the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and discussions with the relevant Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups, similar trials were identified for 5 of the 6 articles. It was not our intention to do a systematic search for trials or to make judgments about whether there was sufficient similarity between the reported trial and previous trials to combine them in a formal meta-analysis. Instead, we simply tried to identify studies that should be considered for inclusion in a systematic review. On this basis, we judged only 1 of the 26 trials identified as likely to genuinely be the first to address a particular question.37
Of the remaining 25 articles, 2 discussed the results of the reported trial in the context of a systematic review. Four others mentioned prior systematic reviews but did not attempt to integrate the new results into updated versions of these reviews. Many of the other articles, including some that claimed to be the first trial addressing a particular question, did contain citations to previous trials, but it is unclear whether these represented all similar trials, how they had been identified, or why they had been included.
COMMENT
We have attempted to find studies similar to our own in which others have assessed whether trial reports set their results in the context of the totality of the evidence; so far, we have been unsuccessful. We recognize that our study can provide nothing more than a snapshot of the current state of the discussion sections of trial reports. However, the articles we assessed were published in 5 widely respected journals, 4 of which have endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. It was not our aim to assess whether the discussion sections of trial reports have improved or worsened over time. Rather we sought to assess whether a problem existed at the time of our study. We suggest that our findings confirm a problem did exist in May 1997. We welcome other studies, since these would help to assess the extent of the problem.
We did not investigate how well the authors of a trial report fulfilled the other important role of the discussion section as an opportunity to summarize and critique the findings of their own trial.39 Others have done this within particular health care questions. For example, in a study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis, Rochon and colleagues40 found the data presented did not support conclusions about efficacy in nearly one fifth of the articles, and did not support claims about toxicity in about half the articles. We did not investigate whether each article's introduction section included details of a systematic review done in advance of the reported research. Any such review was likely to be out of date by the time the new trial was completed and published. If a review had been done in advance of the new trial, then it would seem sensible to update it in the discussion section.
More than 10 years after the ISIS-1 article, considerable scope remains for authors and journals to help readers set the results of new trials in the context of previous research. Very occasionally, a new study can be confidently regarded as unique and the manuscript can thus justifiably be regarded as providing the totality of evidence addressing a particular question. However, these circumstances are likely to be rare, and such claims need to be justified by a thorough search for earlier studies. Smith and Goodman41 concluded that the failure of authors to mention relevant previous work is probably a widespread form of research malpractice. They commended the suggestion that, when submitting reports for journal review, investigators should provide evidence that they have made a thorough search for relevant previous work.7
An editorial accompanying the 1986 ISIS-1 article referring to the updated systematic review of relevant data presented in its discussion section acknowledged that "there is a good case for such analyses." But it went on to state that if anyone suggested these should become a regular feature of clinical trial reports, The Lancet would "lead the opposition."42 There seems less justification for such a response 12 years later with the development of electronic publication. For example, 1 of the 2 articles identified in this study as containing an updated systematic review (both of which were published in The Lancet) summarized the findings of that review and referred readers to the electronically published versions of the relevant reviews.23, 43-44
The best way to report the findings of a new trial in the context of earlier studies would be to include an updated systematic review in the discussion section. This would reduce the tendency for the new trial or a select group of previous trials to be viewed in isolation from the whole body of relevant previous research. If, in planning their study, the trialists had to identify and consider relevant prior research, then the production of a systematic review to incorporate their eventual results should be much easier. In addition, with the rapidly increasing number of systematic reviews included in the Cochrane Library,45 trialists should be increasingly able to find a ready source for the context into which to set their results.
The public is often confused by the conflicting messages it receives as a result of piecemeal reporting of research. To deserve the public's continued support and trust, researchers and journals need to ensure that reports of research end with scientifically defensible answers to Bradford Hill's question, "What does it mean, anyway?" Those who turn to reports of trials to help guide treatment deserve nothing less than a discussion of the totality of the relevant evidence, as rightly recommended by the CONSORT Group. To paraphrase John Donne, No trial is an island, entire of itself; every trial is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.46
AUTHOR INFORMATION
| |
Presented at the Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication, Prague, Czech Republic, September 20, 1997.
We take full responsibility for the content of this article and for any mistakes we may have made in the classification of the articles published during May 1997, but we would like to acknowledge the many people who provided advice during and after the study. We would like to thank Doug Altman, Colin Baigent, Rory Collins, Carl Counsell, Matthias Egger, Julie Glanville, Paul Glasziou, Liz Greaves, Andrew Herxheimer, Tom Jefferson, Magne Nylenna, Andy Oxman, David Sackett, Ken Schulz, Trevor Sheldon, and Simon Wessely for their helpful comments on either the protocol for this study, earlier drafts of parts of the manuscript, or both. We are also grateful to the other members of the Cochrane Collaboration who helped by telling us of any similar trials to those reported in May 1997: Rob de Bie (Cochrane Rehabilitation and Therapy Field, Maastricht, the Netherlands) and Steve Milan (Cochrane Airways Group, London, England); and to the authors of some of the reports for providing clarification. We are also grateful to those who commented on the study and our interpretation of it when it was presented at the Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication at Prague, Czech Republic, September 20, 1997.
Reprints: Michael Clarke, DPhil, ICRF Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, England (e-mail: mike.clarke{at}ctsu.ox.ac.uk).
From the Clinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford University (Dr Clarke), and the United Kingdom Cochrane Centre (Drs Clarke and Chalmers), Oxford, England.
REFERENCES
1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
2. Hemminki E. Quality of clinical trials: a concern of three decades. Methods Inf Med. 1982;21:81-85.
ISI
| PUBMED
3. Hill AB. The reasons for writing. BMJ. 1965;4:870.
4. Gotzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987;295:654-656.
ISI
| PUBMED
5. Campbell FM. National bias: a comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1990;78:376-382.
ISI
| PUBMED
6. Gibbs WW. Lost science in the Third World. Sci Am. 1995;273:92-99.
7. Chalmers TC, Frank CS, Reitman D. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias. JAMA. 1990;263:1392-1395.
ABSTRACT
8. Wessely S, Joyce J, Rabe-Hesketh S. Reviewing the reviews: the case of chronic fatigue syndrome. Paper presented at: Third International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; September 19, 1997; Prague, Czech Republic.
9. Saunders MC, Dick JS, Brown IM, McPherson K, Chalmers I. The effects of hospital admission for bed rest on the duration of twin pregnancy: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1985;2:793-795.
ISI
| PUBMED
10. First International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous atenolol among 16,027 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-1. Lancet. 1986;2:57-66.
FULL TEXT
| PUBMED
11. Mulrow CD, ed, Oxman AD, ed. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook: Definitions of RCTs and CCTS. Appendix 5b. In: The Cochrane Library [database on CD-ROM]. Oxford, England: Update Software; 1996. Updated quarterly.
12. Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. In: The Cochrane Library [database on CD-ROM]. Oxford, England: Update Software; 1997. Issue 2.
13. Abraham E, Glauser MP, Butler T, et al. p55 Tumor necrosis factor receptor fusion protein in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock: a randomized controlled multicenter trial. JAMA. 1997;277:1531-1538.
ABSTRACT
14. Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1557-1561.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Bracken MB, Shepard MJ, Holford TR, et al. Administration of methylprednisolone for 24 or 48 hours or tirilazad mesylate for 48 hours in the treatment of acute spinal cord injury: results of the Third National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 1997;277:1597-1604.
ABSTRACT
16. CAESAR Coordinating Committee. Randomised trial of addition of lamivudine or lamivudine plus loviride to zidovudine-containing regimens for patients with HIV-1 infection: the CAESAR trial. Lancet. 1997;349:1413-1421.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
17. Chung SS, Lau JY, Sung JJ, et al. Randomised comparison between adrenaline injection alone and adrenaline injection plus heat probe treatment for actively bleeding ulcers. BMJ. 1997;314:1307-1311.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Creed F, Mbaya P, Lancashire S, Tomenson B, Williams B, Holme S. Cost effectiveness of day and inpatient psychiatric treatment: results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1997;314:1381-1385.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. Gasche C, Dejaco C, Waldhoer T, et al. Intravenous iron and erythropoietin for anemia associated with Crohn disease: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:782-787.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Gianni AM, Bregni M, Siena S, et al. High-dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow transplantation compared with MACOP-B in aggressive B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1290-1297.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Grossman DC, Neckerman HJ, Koepsell TD, et al. Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;277:1605-1611.
ABSTRACT
22. Hall AS, Murray GD, Ball SG. Follow-up study of patients randomly allocated ramipril or placebo for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction: AIRE Extension (AIREX) Study. Lancet. 1997;349:1493-1497.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
23. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19,435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet. 1997;349:1569-1581.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Jacobson JM, Greenspan JS, Spritzler J, et al. Thalidomide for the treatment of oral aphthous ulcers in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1487-1493.
FREE FULL TEXT
25. Khan WA, Seas C, Dhar U, Salam MA, Bennish ML. Treatment of shigellosis, V: comparison of azithromycin and ciprofloxacin: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:697-703.
FREE FULL TEXT
26. Liem MS, van der Graaf Y, van Steensel CJ, et al. Comparison of conventional anterior surgery and laparoscopic surgery for inguinal-hernia repair. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1541-1547.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Luzuriaga K, Bryson Y, Krogstad P, et al. Combination treatment with zidovudine, didanosine, and nevirapine in infants with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1343-1349.
FREE FULL TEXT
28. Malmberg K, for the DIGAMI Study Group. Prospective randomised study of intensive insulin treatment on long term survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus. BMJ. 1997;314:1512-1515.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Meydani SN, Meydani M, Blumberg JB, et al. Vitamin E supplementation and in vivo immune response in healthy elderly subjects. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;277:1380-1386.
ABSTRACT
30. Perez V, Gilaberte I, Faries D, Alvarez E, Artigas F. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pindolol in combination with fluoxetine antidepressant treatment. Lancet. 1997;349:1594-1597.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
31. Quinn J, Wells G, Sutcliffe T, et al. A randomized trial comparing octylcyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and sutures in the management of lacerations. JAMA. 1997;277:1527-1530.
ABSTRACT
32. Schuman P, Capps L, Peng G, et al. Weekly fluconazole for the prevention of mucosal candidiasis in women with HIV infection: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:689-696.
FREE FULL TEXT
33. Spruance SL, Rea TL, Thoming C, Tucker R, Saltzman R, Boon R. Penciclovir cream for the treatment of herpes simplex labialis: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. JAMA. 1997;277:1374-1379.
ABSTRACT
34. The IMPACT-II Investigators. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of effect of eptifibatide on complications of percutaneous coronary intervention: Integrilin to Minimise Platelet Aggregation and Coronary Thrombosis-II. Lancet. 1997;349:1422-1428.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
35. The CAPTURE Investigators. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of abciximab before and during coronary intervention in refractory unstable angina: the CAPTURE Study. Lancet. 1997;349:1429-1435.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Tingle AJ, Mitchell LA, Grace M, et al. Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study on adverse effects of rubella immunisation in seronegative women. Lancet. 1997;349:1277-1281.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
37. Wilding P, Clark M, Coon JT, et al. Effect of long-term treatment with salmeterol on asthma control: a double blind, randomised crossover study. BMJ. 1997;314:1441-1446.
FREE FULL TEXT
38. Winters JC, Sobel JS, Groenier KH, Arendzen HJ, Meyboom de Jong B. Comparison of physiotherapy, manipulation, and corticosteroid injection for treating shoulder complaints in general practice: randomised, single blind study. BMJ. 1997;314:1320-1325.
FREE FULL TEXT
39. Tyson JE, Furzan JA, Reisch JS, Mize SG. An evaluation of the quality of therapeutic studies in perinatal medicine. J Pediatr. 1983;102:10-13.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, et al. A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154:157-163.
ABSTRACT
41. Smith AJ, Goodman NW. The hypertensive response to intubation: do researchers acknowledge previous work? Can J Anaesth. 1997;44:9-13.
FREE FULL TEXT
42. Intravenous beta-blockade during acute myocardial infarction [editorial]. Lancet. 1986;2:79-80.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
43. Counsell C, Sandercock P. The efficacy and safety of anticoagulant therapy in patients with assumed ischaemic stroke. In: The Cochrane Library [database on CD-ROM]. Oxford, England: Update Software; 1997. Issue 1.
44. Counsell C, Sandercock P. The efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy in patients with assumed ischaemic stroke. In: The Cochrane Library [database on CD-ROM]. Oxford, England: Update Software; 1997. Issue 1.
45. The Cochrane Library [database on CD-ROM]. Oxford, England: Update Software; 1997.
46. Donne J. Devotion Upon Emergent Occasions. Meditation 17.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Evaluation of networks of randomized trials
Salanti et al.
Stat Methods Med Res 2008;17:279-301.
ABSTRACT
Why promote the findings of single research studies?
Wilson et al.
BMJ 2008;336:722-722.
FULL TEXT
Systematically Retrieving Research: A Case Study Evaluating Seven Databases
Taylor et al.
Research on Social Work Practice 2007;17:697-706.
ABSTRACT
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report
Clarke et al.
JRSM 2007;100:187-190.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
One relative risk versus two odds ratios: implications for meta-analyses involving paired and unpaired binary data
Zou
Clin Trials 2007;4:25-31.
ABSTRACT
Randomized controlled trials of aprotinin in cardiac surgery: could clinical equipoise have stopped the bleeding?
Fergusson et al.
Clin Trials 2005;2:218-232.
ABSTRACT
Introduction to Cumulative Meta-analysis in Dentistry: Lessons Learned from Undertaking a Cumulative Meta-analysis in Periodontology
Moles et al.
J. Dent. Res. 2005;84:345-349.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
From knowledge to practice in chronic cardiovascular disease: a long and winding road
Majumdar et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1738-1742.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Hidden Research Paper
Horton
JAMA 2002;287:2775-2778.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals
Clarke et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2799-2801.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Brief History of Research Synthesis
Chalmers et al.
Eval Health Prof 2002;25:12-37.
ABSTRACT
Reporting the clinical importance of randomized controlled trials
Moher et al.
CMAJ 2002;166:711-712.
FULL TEXT
Revisiting the Cochrane Collaboration
Clarke and Langhorne
BMJ 2001;323:821-821.
FULL TEXT
Commentary: Toward systematic reviews in epidemiology
Bracken
Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:954-957.
FULL TEXT
Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials: A Comparative Before-and-After Evaluation
Moher et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1992-1995.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Scientific and Ethical Issues in Equivalence Trials
Djulbegovic and Clarke
JAMA 2001;285:1206-1208.
FULL TEXT
Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in The Cochrane Library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture
Avenell et al.
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2001;73:505-510.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of Evidence for Treatment of Prostate Cancer
Clarke and Wilt
JAMA 2000;284:1785-1786.
FULL TEXT
Evidence-based medicine: a commentary on common criticisms
Straus and McAlister
CMAJ 2000;163:837-841.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electronic Trial Banks: A Complementary Method for Reporting Randomized Trials
Sim et al.
Med Decis Making 2000;20:440-450.
ABSTRACT
Evaluating "payback" on biomedical research
Chalmers et al.
BMJ 2000;321:566-566.
FULL TEXT
Helping Physicians To Keep Abreast of the Medical Literature: Medical and Philosophical Commentaries, 1773-1795
Chalmers and Trohler
ANN INTERN MED 2000;133:238-243.
FULL TEXT
Structuring the discussion of scientific papers
Jefferson et al.
BMJ 1999;319:580-580.
FULL TEXT
Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 1: The P Value Fallacy
Goodman
ANN INTERN MED 1999;130:995-1004.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Standing Statistics Right Side Up
Davidoff
ANN INTERN MED 1999;130:1019-1021.
FULL TEXT
The CONSORT Statement: Will It Lead to Improved Reporting of Clinical Trials in Ophthalmology?
Hawkins
Arch Ophthalmol 1999;117:677-680.
FULL TEXT
Unbiased, relevant, and reliable assessments in health care
Chalmers
BMJ 1998;317:1167-1168.
FULL TEXT
Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT
|
