FILTER RECORDS BY
PERIOD
<18th Century
18th Century
19th Century
1900-1949
1950-1999
21st Century
ORIGIN OF AUTHOR
American
Arab (medieval)
Australian
Austrian
Belgian
British
Canadian
Chinese
Chinese (medieval)
Colombian
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
Egyptian
Egyptian (ancient)
English (medieval)
Finnish
Flemish
French
German
Greek
Greek (ancient)
Hebrew (ancient)
Hungarian
Indian
Indonesian
Irish
Israeli
Italian
Italian (medieval)
Japanese
Multinational
Norwegian
Persian (medieval)
Polish
Portuguese
Roman (ancient)
Russian
South African
Spanish
Swedish
Swiss
Unknown
Vietnamese
Coleman E, Arundel C, Clark L, Doherty L, Gillies K, Hewitt C, Innes K, Parker A, Torgerson D, Treweek S (2021) Bah humbug! Association between sending Christmas cards to trial participants and trial retention: randomised study within a trial conducted simultaneously across eight host trials. BMJ 375, e067742. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-067742.long View
Bradley VC, Kuriwaki S, Isakov M, Sejdinovic D, Meng X, Flaxman S (2021) Unrepresentative big surveys significantly overestimated US vaccine uptake. Nature 600, 695–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04198-4. 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
Ristl R, Urach S, Rosenkranz G, Posch M (2018) Methods for the analysis of multiple endpoints in small populations: A review. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 29:1-29. View
Imberger G, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J (2016) False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review. BMJ Open 6(8):e011890. View
Misemer BS, Platts-Mills TF, Jones CW (2016) Citation bias favoring positive clinical trials of thrombolytics for acute ischemic stroke: a cross-sectional analysis. Trials 17:473. View
Abraha I, Cherubini A, Cozzolino F, De Florio R, Luchetta ML, Rimland JM, Folletti I, Marchesi M, Germani A, Orso M, Eusebi P, Montedori A (2015) Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2015;350:h2445. View
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A (2014) Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014;(10):MR000035. View
White IR, Carpenter J, Horton NJ (2012) Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clinical Trials 9:396-407. View
Montedori A, Cherubini A, Bonacini MI, Casazza G, Luchetta ML, Duca P, Cozzolino F, Abraha I (2011) Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomised trials? A cross-sectional study. Trials 12:58. View
Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, Lane M, Glasziou P, Zhou Q, Heels-Ansdell D, Walter SD, Guyatt GH; STOPIT-2 Study Group (2010) Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 303:1180-7. View
Kramer MS, Martin RM, Sterne JA, Shapiro S, Mourad D, Platt RW (2009) The double jeopardy of clustered measurement and cluster randomisation. BMJ 339:503-505. View
Trotta F, Apolone G, Garattini S, Tafuri G (2008) Stopping a trial early in oncology: for patients or for industry? Annals of Oncology Feb 29; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn042. View
Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM, Bucher HC, Schunemann HJ, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Erwin PJ, Sood A, Sood R, Lo B, Thompson CA, Zhou Q, Mills E, Guyatt GH (2005) Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 294:2203-2209. View
Davidson I, Hillier VF (2002) Comparison of four methods of allocation for clinical trials with small sample sizes. Physiotherapy 88;12:722-729, ISSN 0031-9406. View
Yusuf S (2000) Challenges in the conduct and interpretation of phase II (pilot) randomized trials. . American Heart Journal 139:S136-42. View
Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J (2000) Intention-to-treat analysis is related to methodological quality. BMJ 320:107-108. View
Hollis S, Campbell F (1999) What is meant by intention-to-treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319:670-674. View
Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG (1994) The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ 309:1677-1681. View
Hill AB, Hill ID (1991) Differential exclusions. In: Bradford Hill’s Principles of Medical Statistics. 12th edition. London: Edward Arnold. pp 226-228. View
Gøtzsche PC (1989) Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clinical Trials 10:31-56. View
Newcombe RG (1988) Explanatory and pragmatic estimates of the treatment effect when deviations from allocated treatment occur. . Statistics in Medicine Volume 7, Issue 11 p. 1179-1186. View
Gøtzsche PC (1987) Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 295:654-656. View
Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ (1987) Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. New England Journal of Medicine 317:426-32. View
Mainland D (1963) Elementary medical statistics: 2nd edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co. View
Knowelden J (1960) The analysis and presentation of results. In: Hill AB, ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. In: Hill AB, ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 155-159. View
Bywaters E (1960) Rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment and illustrative answers. In: Hill AB ed. Controlled Clinical Trials. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp 75-83. View
Knowelden J (1959) Prophylactic trials. In: Witts LJ ed. Medical Surveys and Clinical Trials. London: Oxford University Press. pp 118-133. View
Lasagna L, Meier P (1959) Experimental Design and Statistical Problems. In: Waife SO, Shapiro AP, eds. The Clinical Evaluation of New Drugs. New York: Hoeber. pp 37-60. View
Laurence DR, ed. (1959) Quantitative Methods in Human Pharmacology and Therapeutics. London: Pergamon Press. View
Sutherland I (1958) Statistical aspects of clinical trials. In: Dodds C, ed. Report of a Symposium on Clinical Trials held at The Royal Society of Medicine, London, 25 April, p 53, pp 50-55. View
Herdan G (1955) Statistics of Therapeutic Trials. Amsterdam: Elsevier. View
Mainland D (1952) Intercurrent Events. In: Elementary Medical Statistics: the principles of quantitative medicine. London: WB Saunders Company, p 109. [Facimile copy printed and bound in India. Pranava Books. 2- LB100151138852 -301 -4 sa.] View
Show
ALL ARTICLES
Brief histories
Commentaries
Biographies
Personal reflections
Doctoral theses
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
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
Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Pound P (2022).The role of systematic reviews in identifying the limitations of preclinical animal research, 2000 – 2022. 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
Tröhler U (2020)Probabilistic thinking and the evaluation of therapies, 1700-1900. 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
Altman DG† (2017).Donald Mainland: anatomist, educator, thinker, medical statistician, trialist, rheumatologist. 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
Schlesselman JJ (2015).Jerome Cornfield’s Bayesian approach to assessing interim results in clinical trials. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the history of treatment evaluation. View
Nothing found, please try resetting your search filters