Search results for “altman”

FILTER CLEAR FILTERS

SORT author date relevance


FILTER RECORDS BY


Altman DG (1983)
Evaluating a series of clinical trials of the same treatment. Unpublished 40-page development of the author’s 7-page summary (Altman 1981) of his presentation at a meeting of the International Epidemiological Association in Edinburgh, August 1981.

View

Altman DG (1981)
Evaluating a series of clinical trials of the same treatment. Unpublished 7-page summary of the author’s presentation at a meeting of the International Epidemiological Association in Edinburgh, August 1981.

View

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG, Grimes DA, Doré CJ (1995)
The methodologic quality of randomization as assessed from reports of trials in specialist and general medical journals. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials 4:197.

View

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG (1995)
Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273:408-412.

View

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG (1994)
Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA 272:125-8.

View

Altman DG (1981)
Statistics and ethics in medical research. VIII-Improving the quality of statistics in medical journals. BMJ 282:44–47.

View

Altman DG, Doré CJ (1990)
Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. . Lancet 335:149–153.

View

Altman DG (2015)
Making research articles fit for purpose: structured reporting of key methods and findings. Trials 16:53.

View

Altman DG (1982)
Statistics in medical journals. Statistics in Medicine 1:59-71.

View

Altman DG, Gore SM, Gardner MJ, Pocock SJ (1983)
Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ 286:1489-93.

View

Chan A-W, Hròbjartsson A, Haahr M, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004)
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to publications. JAMA 291:2457-2465.

View

Chalmers I, Altman DG (1995)
Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publications.

View

Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Moher D (2016)
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Medicine 13(5):e1002028.

View

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007)
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4(3):e78.

View

Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ (1990)
More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine 113:69-75.

View

Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk EM, Gluud C, Gluud LL, Ioannidis JPA, Schulz KF, Beynon R, Welton NJ, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks JJ, Sterne JAC (2012)
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 157:429-438.

View

Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P (2014)
Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 32:4120-4126.

View

Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hrobjartsson A, Lasserson T, Boutron I (2016)
A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 75:56-65.

View

Chan AW, Krleža-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman D (2004)
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2004;171:735-40.

View

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (2001)
Systematic reviews in health care. London: BMJ Books.

View

Standards of Reporting Trials Group (1994)
A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272:1926-31.

View

Mainland D (1938)
The treatment of clinical and laboratory data: an introduction to statistical ideas and methods for medical and dental workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.

View

Robinson KA, Goodman SN (2011)
A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 154(1): 50-55.

View

Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I (2002)
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 287: 2799-801.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2007)
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 100: 187-90.

View

Cox DR (1958)
Planning of experiments. London: Wiley.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S, Chalmers I (2010)
Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet 376: 20-1.

View

Mainland D (1948)
Statistical methods in medical research. Canadian Journal of Research E, 26:1-166.

View

Clarke M, Hopewell S (2013)
Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. Journal of the Bahrain Medical Society 24: 145-8.

View

Clarke M, Chalmers I (1998)
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents? JAMA 280: 280-2.

View

Daniels M (1950)
Scientific appraisement of new drugs in tuberculosis. American Review of Tuberculosis 61:751-756.

View

Bradley SH, DeVito NJ, Lloyd KE, Richards GC, Rombey T, Wayant C, Gill PJ (2020)
Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 113:433-443.

View

Sollmann T (1917)
The crucial test of therapeutic evidence. JAMA 69:198-199.

View

Mainland D (1963)
The significance of "nonsignificance". Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 4:580-6.

View

Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Clayton G, Sterne JAC, Hróbjartsson A, Savović J (2016)
Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies. PLOS ONE 11(7):e0159267.

View

Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998)
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352:609-613.

View

Mainland D (1963)
Elementary medical statistics: 2nd edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.

View

Mainland D (1934)
Chance and the blood count. Canadian Medical Association Journal 30:656-658.

View

Mainland D (1955)
An experimental statistician looks at anthropometry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 63:474-483.

View

Armitage P, Borchgrevink CF (1966)
Prevention of recurrences of myocardial infarction. Comments on a previous article. Archives of Internal Medicine 118:270-274.

View

Cole JO, Ross S, Bouthilet L, Freeman H, Bennett IF, Hoffman JL, Lehmann H (1957)
Recommendations for reporting studies of psychiatric drugs. Public Health Report 72:638–645.

View

Mainland D (1954)
The modern method of clinical trial. In Steele JM, ed. Methods in Medical Research, Vol 6. Chicago: Year Book Inc, pp152-158.

View

Ross OB (1951)
The use of controls in medical research. JAMA 145:72-75.

View

Pearl R (1919)
A statistical discussion of the relative efficacy of different methods of treating pneumonia. Archives of Internal Medicine 24:398-403.

View

Mainland D (1960)
The use and misuse of statistics in medical publications. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1:411-22.

View

Glick BS (1963)
Inadequacies in the reporting of clinical drug research. Psychiatr Q 37:234-44.

View

Cornfield J (1978)
Randomization by group: a formal analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 108:100-102.

View

Armitage P (1960)
The construction of comparable groups. In: Hill AB. Controlled clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 14-18.

View

The CONSORT Group (1996)
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT Statement. JAMA 276:637-639.

View

Show


Chalmers I (2019).
Doug Altman’s prescience in recognizing the need to reduce biases before tackling imprecision in Systematic Reviews. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Altman DG†, Simera I (2015).
A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Altman DG†, Grimes DA, Moher D, Hayes RJ (2018).
‘Allocation concealment’: the evolution and adoption of a methodological term. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Altman DG† (2017).
Donald Mainland: anatomist, educator, thinker, medical statistician, trialist, rheumatologist. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Dickersin K, Chalmers I (2010).
Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the World Health Organisation. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

O'Rourke K (2006).
A historical perspective on meta-analysis: dealing quantitatively with varying study results. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Altman DG† (2017).
Avoiding bias in trials in which allocation ratio is varied. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Chalmers I, Matthews R, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Armitage P (2023).
Analysis of clinical trial by Treatment Allocated or by Treatment Received? Applying ‘the intention-to-treat principle’. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Clarke M (2015).
History of evidence synthesis to assess treatment effects: personal reflections on something that is very much alive. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Mirza RD, Punja S, Vohra S, Guyatt G (2017).
The history and development of N of 1 trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Glasziou P, Matthews R, Boutron I, Chalmers I, Armitage P (2023)
The differences and overlaps between ‘explanatory’ and ‘pragmatic’ controlled trials: a historical perspective. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD (2009).
Medicine’s methodological debt to the social sciences. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Haynes RB (2016).
Improving reports of research by more informative abstracts: a personal reflection JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Jefferson T (2019).
Sponsorship bias in clinical trials – growing menace or dawning realisation? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Wartolowska K, Beard DJ, Carr AJ (2017).
The use of placebos in controlled trials of surgical interventions: a brief history. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Huth EJ (2006).
Jules Gavarret’s Principes Généraux de Statistique Médicale: a pioneering text on the statistical analysis of the results of treatments. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Held L, Matthews RAJ (2022).
Paradigm lost: Carl Liebermeister and the development of modern medical statistics. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Welsh BC, Podolsky SH, Zane SN (2020).
Between medicine and criminology: Richard Cabot’s contribution to the design of experimental evaluations of social interventions in the late 1930s. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Lee A (2022).
The development of network meta-analysis. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Gluud C, Hilden J (2008).
Povl Heiberg’s 1897 methodological study on the statistical method as an aid in therapeutic trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Podolsky SH (2022).
The (Harry) Gold Standard: angina, suggestion, and the path to the “double-blind” test and Clinical Pharmacology. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Toth B (2018).
Pioneering controlled trials of treatments for erysipelas and pneumonia in Glasgow, 1936-47. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Huth EJ (2008).
The move toward setting scientific standards for the content of medical review articles. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Chalmers I (2010).
Why the 1948 MRC trial of streptomycin used treatment allocation based on random numbers. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Fox DM (2011).
Systematic reviews and health policy: the influence of a project on perinatal care since 1988. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Chalmers I, Dukan E, Podolsky SH, Davey Smith G (2011).
The advent of fair treatment allocation schedules in clinical trials during the 19th and early 20th centuries. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Marušić A, Fatović-Ferenčić S (2012).
Adoption of the double dummy trial design to reduce observer bias in testing treatments. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Johnson A (2019).
Textbooks and other publications on controlled clinical trials, 1948 to 1983. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Moberg J, Kramer M (2015).
A brief history of the cluster randomized trial design. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Gøtzsche PC (2021).
Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

Zwarenstein M (2016).
‘Pragmatic’ and ‘Explanatory’ attitudes to randomized trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.

View

1.3 Why treatment comparisons must be fair

View

2.4 The need to avoid differences in the way treatment outcomes are assessed

View

2.5 Bias introduced after looking at study results

View

2.7 Dealing with biased reporting of the available evidence

View

4.0 Bringing it all together for the benefit of patients and the public

View

4.1 Improving reports of research

View

4.2 Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews of all the relevant evidence

View

About the Library

View

Comment faire face à la communication biaisée des éléments de preuve disponibles

View

Como lidar com o vício da evidência disponível

View

Cómo manejar los sesgos en los informes de la evidencia disponible

View

Diferencias en la manera en que se evalúan los resultados de los tratamientos

View

Diferenças na maneira como os resultados dos tratamentos são avaliados

View

Différences dans la façon dont les résultats des traitements sont évalués

View

Revisiones sistemáticas de toda la evidencia pertinente

View

Revisões sistemáticas das evidências relevantes

View

Revue systématique de tous les éléments de preuve pertinents

View

Различия в способах оценки результатов лечения

View

Решение проблемы субъективного представления имеющихся фактических данных

View

Систематические анализы всех соответствующих фактических данных

View

الاختلافات بين الطريقة التي يجري بها تقيـيم المعالجات

View

التعامل مع التقارير المتحيزة حول البيِّنات المتاحة

View

المراجعات المنهجية لجميع البيِّنات ذات الصلة

View

处理对现有证据带有偏倚的报告

View

对所有相关证据的系统评价

View

治疗结局评价方式的差异

View

BROWSE

Topics
Essays
Records
Articles

ABOUT

What is a fair test?
About the Library
Building the Library
Using the Library

COPYRIGHT

Where not otherwise indicated, material in the James Lind Library is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

FEEDBACK

Contact us

We welcome your suggestions for the design or content of the Library

Website by Minervation Ltd, supported by the James Lind Initiative and the Presidential Fund of the Swiss National Science Foundation.