James Lind Library
Illustrating the development of fair tests of treatments in health care
About the Library
About the Library
Search results for
Ear, nose & throat
FILTER RECORDS BY
ORIGIN OF AUTHOR
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 Unpublished 40-page development of the author’s 7-page summary (Altman 1981) of his presentation at a meeting of the International Epidemiological Association in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.
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 Unpublished 7-page summary of the author’s presentation at a meeting of the International Epidemiological Association in Edinburgh, August 1981.
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.
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.
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.
Altman DG (1981)
Statistics and ethics in medical research. VIII-Improving the quality of statistics in medical journals. BMJ 282:44–47.
Altman DG, Doré CJ (1990)
Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. . Lancet 335:149–153.
Altman DG (2015)
Making research articles fit for purpose: structured reporting of key methods and findings. Trials 16:53.
Altman DG (1982)
Statistics in medical journals. Statistics in Medicine 1:59-71.
Altman DG, Gore SM, Gardner MJ, Pocock SJ (1983)
Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. BMJ 286:1489-93.
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.
Chalmers I, Altman DG (1995)
Systematic Reviews. London: BMJ Publications.
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.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007)
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 4(3):e78.
Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ (1990)
More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine 113:69-75.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG (2001)
Systematic reviews in health care. London: BMJ Books.
Standards of Reporting Trials Group (1994)
A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272:1926-31.
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.
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.
Clarke M, Alderson P, Chalmers I (2002)
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA 287: 2799-801.
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.
Cox DR (1958)
Planning of experiments. London: Wiley.
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.
Mainland D (1948)
Statistical methods in medical research. Canadian Journal of Research E, 26:1-166.
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.
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.
Daniels M (1950)
Scientific appraisement of new drugs in tuberculosis. American Review of Tuberculosis 61:751-756.
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.
Sollmann T (1917)
The crucial test of therapeutic evidence. JAMA 69:198-199.
Mainland D (1963)
The significance of "nonsignificance". Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 4:580-6.
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.
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.
Mainland D (1963)
Elementary medical statistics: 2nd edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co.
Mainland D (1934)
Chance and the blood count. Canadian Medical Association Journal 30:656-658.
Mainland D (1955)
An experimental statistician looks at anthropometry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 63:474-483.
Armitage P, Borchgrevink CF (1966)
Prevention of recurrences of myocardial infarction. Comments on a previous article. Archives of Internal Medicine 118:270-274.
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.
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.
Ross OB (1951)
The use of controls in medical research. JAMA 145:72-75.
Pearl R (1919)
A statistical discussion of the relative efficacy of different methods of treating pneumonia. Archives of Internal Medicine 24:398-403.
Mainland D (1960)
The use and misuse of statistics in medical publications. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1:411-22.
Glick BS (1963)
Inadequacies in the reporting of clinical drug research. Psychiatr Q 37:234-44.
Cornfield J (1978)
Randomization by group: a formal analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology 108:100-102.
Armitage P (1960)
The construction of comparable groups. In: Hill AB. Controlled clinical trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 14-18.
The CONSORT Group (1996)
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT Statement. JAMA 276:637-639.
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.
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.
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.
Altman DG† (2017).
Donald Mainland: anatomist, educator, thinker, medical statistician, trialist, rheumatologist. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
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.
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.
Altman DG† (2017).
Avoiding bias in trials in which allocation ratio is varied. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD (2009).
Medicine’s methodological debt to the social sciences. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
Haynes RB (2016).
Improving reports of research by more informative abstracts: a personal reflection JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
Jefferson T (2019).
Sponsorship bias in clinical trials – growing menace or dawning realisation? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lee A (2022).
The development of network meta-analysis. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson A (2019).
Textbooks and other publications on controlled clinical trials, 1948 to 1983. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
Moberg J, Kramer M (2015).
A brief history of the cluster randomized trial design. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
Gøtzsche PC (2021).
Citation bias: questionable research practice or scientific misconduct? JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
Zwarenstein M (2016).
‘Pragmatic’ and ‘Explanatory’ attitudes to randomized trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation.
1.3 Why treatment comparisons must be fair
2.4 The need to avoid differences in the way treatment outcomes are assessed
2.5 Bias introduced after looking at study results
2.7 Dealing with biased reporting of the available evidence
4.0 Bringing it all together for the benefit of patients and the public
4.1 Improving reports of research
4.2 Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews of all the relevant evidence
About the Library
Comment faire face à la communication biaisée des éléments de preuve disponibles
Como lidar com o vício da evidência disponível
Cómo manejar los sesgos en los informes de la evidencia disponible
Diferencias en la manera en que se evalúan los resultados de los tratamientos
Diferenças na maneira como os resultados dos tratamentos são avaliados
Différences dans la façon dont les résultats des traitements sont évalués
Revisiones sistemáticas de toda la evidencia pertinente
Revisões sistemáticas das evidências relevantes
Revue systématique de tous les éléments de preuve pertinents
Различия в способах оценки результатов лечения
Решение проблемы субъективного представления имеющихся фактических данных
Систематические анализы всех соответствующих фактических данных
الاختلافات بين الطريقة التي يجري بها تقيـيم المعالجات
التعامل مع التقارير المتحيزة حول البيِّنات المتاحة
المراجعات المنهجية لجميع البيِّنات ذات الصلة
Individual patient data
Fair tests of treatments
The need to address treatment uncertainties
Principles of Testing
Treatment comparisons are essential
Treatment comparisons must be fair
Biases in judging unanticipated possible effects
Biases in systematic reviews
Researcher/sponsor bias and fraud
The play of chance
Recording and interpreting numbers
Bringing it all together for the benefit of patients and the public
Improving reports of research
Preparing and maintaining systematic reviews
Using the results of research
What is a fair test?
About the Library
Building the Library
Using the Library
Where not otherwise indicated, material in the James Lind Library
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
We welcome your suggestions for the design or content of the Library
, supported by the James Lind Initiative and the Presidential Fund of the Swiss National Science Foundation.