Iain K. Crombie - Evidence in Medicine

Здесь есть возможность читать онлайн «Iain K. Crombie - Evidence in Medicine» — ознакомительный отрывок электронной книги совершенно бесплатно, а после прочтения отрывка купить полную версию. В некоторых случаях можно слушать аудио, скачать через торрент в формате fb2 и присутствует краткое содержание. Жанр: unrecognised, на английском языке. Описание произведения, (предисловие) а так же отзывы посетителей доступны на портале библиотеки ЛибКат.

Evidence in Medicine: краткое содержание, описание и аннотация

Предлагаем к чтению аннотацию, описание, краткое содержание или предисловие (зависит от того, что написал сам автор книги «Evidence in Medicine»). Если вы не нашли необходимую информацию о книге — напишите в комментариях, мы постараемся отыскать её.

High-quality evidence is the foundation for effective treatment in medicine. As the vast amount of published medical evidence continues to grow, concerns about the quality of many studies are increasing. 
 is a much-needed resource that addresses the ‘medical misinformation mess’ by assessing the flaws in the research environment. This authoritative text identifies and summarises the many factors that have produced the current problems in medical research, including bias in randomised controlled trials, questionable research practices, falsified data, manipulated findings, and more. 
This volume brings together the findings from meta-research studies and systematic reviews to explore the quality of clinical trials and other medical research, explaining the character and consequences of poor-quality medical evidence using clear language and a wealth of supporting references. The text suggests planning strategies to transform the research process and provides an extensive list of the actions that could be taken by researchers, regulators, and other key stakeholders to address defects in medical evidence. This timely volume: 
Enables readers to select reliable studies and recognise misleading research Highlights the main types of biased and wasted studies Discusses how incentives in the research environment influence the quality of evidence Identifies the problems researchers need to guard against in their work Describes the scale of poor-quality research and explores why the problems are widespread Includes a summary of key findings on poor-quality research and a listing of proposed initiatives to improve research evidence Contains extensive citations to references, reviews, commentaries, and landmark studies 
 is required reading for all researchers who create evidence, funders and publishers of medical research, students who conduct their own research studies, and healthcare practitioners wanting to deliver high-quality, evidence-based care.

Evidence in Medicine — читать онлайн ознакомительный отрывок

Ниже представлен текст книги, разбитый по страницам. Система сохранения места последней прочитанной страницы, позволяет с удобством читать онлайн бесплатно книгу «Evidence in Medicine», без необходимости каждый раз заново искать на чём Вы остановились. Поставьте закладку, и сможете в любой момент перейти на страницу, на которой закончили чтение.

Тёмная тема
Сбросить

Интервал:

Закладка:

Сделать

29 29. van der Steen, J.T., van den Bogert, C.A., van Soest‐Poortvliet, M.C. et al. (2018). Determinants of selective reporting: a taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature. PLoS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188247.

30 30. Bello, S., Moustgaard, H., and Hrobjartsson, A. (2017). Unreported formal assessment of unblinding occurred in 4 of 10 randomized clinical trials, unreported loss of blinding in 1 of 10 trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 81: 42–50.

31 31. Bello, S., Moustgaard, H., and Hrobjartsson, A. (2014). The risk of unblinding was infrequently and incompletely reported in 300 randomized clinical trial publications. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 67: 1059–1069.

32 32. Yi, J., Haibo, H.L., Li, Y. et al. (2020). Risk of bias and its impact on intervention effect estimates of randomized controlled trials in endodontics. J. Endodontics 46: 12–18.

33 33. Moustgaard, H., Clayton, G.L., Jones, H.E. et al. (2020). Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6802.

34 34. Huupponen, R. and Viikari, J. (2013). Statins and the risk of developing diabetes. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3156.

35 35. Tang, E., Ravaud, P., Riveros, C. et al. (2015). Comparison of serious adverse events posted at http://ClinicalTrials.govand published in corresponding journal articles. BMC Med. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916‐015‐0430‐4.

36 36. Favier, R. and Crepin, S. (2018). The reporting of harms in publications on randomized controlled trials funded by the “Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique,” a French academic funding scheme. Clin. Trials 15: 257–267.

37 37. Hughes, S., Cohen, D., and Jaggi, R. (2014). Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross‐sectional study. BMJ Open https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2014‐005535.

38 38. Golder, S., Loke, Y.K., Wright, K. et al. (2016). Reporting of adverse events in published and unpublished studies of health care interventions: a systematic review. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002127.

39 39. Hodkinson, A., Kirkham, J.J., Tudur‐Smith, C. et al. (2013). Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension. BMJ Open https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2013‐003436.

40 40. Fewtrell, M.S., Kennedy, K., Singhal, A. et al. (2008). How much loss to follow‐up is acceptable in long‐term randomised trials and prospective studies? Arch. Dis. Child. 93: 458–461.

41 41. Schulz, K.F. and Grimes, D.A. (2002). Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 359: 781–785.

42 42. Akl, E.A., Briel, M., You, J.J. et al. (2012). Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow‐up in randomised controlled trials (LOST‐IT): systematic review. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2809.

43 43. Zhang, Y., Florez, I.D., Colunga Lozano, L.E. et al. (2017). A systematic survey on reporting and methods for handling missing participant data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 88: 57–66.

44 44. Nuesch, E., Trelle, S., Reichenbach, S. et al. (2009). The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3244.

45 45. Bell, M.L., Fiero, M., Horton, N.J. et al. (2014). Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471‐2288‐14‐118.

46 46. Walters, S.J., Bonacho Dos Anjos Henriques‐Cadby, I., Bortolami, O. et al. (2017). Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2016‐015276.

47 47. Hussain, J.A., White, I.R., Langan, D. et al. (2016). Missing data in randomized controlled trials testing palliative interventions pose a significant risk of bias and loss of power: a systematic review and meta‐analyses. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 74: 57–65.

48 48. Ibrahim, F., Tom, B.D., Scott, D.L. et al. (2016). A systematic review of randomised controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis: the reporting and handling of missing data in composite outcomes. Trials https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063‐016‐1402‐5.

49 49. Miller, B.M. and Brennan, L. (2015). Measuring and reporting attrition from obesity treatment programs: a call to action! Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 9: 187–202.

50 50. Marciniak, T.A., Cherepanov, V., Golukhova, E. et al. (2016). Drug discontinuation and follow‐up rates in oral antithrombotic trials. JAMA Intern. Med. 176: 257–259.

51 51. Hussain, J.A., Bland, M., Langan, D. et al. (2017). Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: a systematic review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 88: 81–91.

52 52. White, I.R., Horton, N.J., Carpenter, J. et al. (2011). Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d40.

53 53. Joseph, R., Sim, J., Ogollah, R. et al. (2015). A systematic review finds variable use of the intention‐to‐treat principle in musculoskeletal randomized controlled trials with missing data. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68: 15–24.

54 54. Kahale, L.A., Diab, B., Khamis, A.M. et al. (2019). Potentially missing data are considerably more frequent than definitely missing data: a methodological survey of 638 randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 106: 18–31.

55 55. Altman, D.G. (2009). Missing outcomes in randomized trials: addressing the dilemma. Open Med. 3: 51–53.

56 56. Molnar, F.J., Hutton, B., and Fergusson, D. (2008). Does analysis using “last observation carried forward” introduce bias in dementia research? CMAJ 179: 751–753.

57 57. Lachin, J.M. (2016). Fallacies of last observation carried forward analyses. Clin. Trials 13: 161–168.

58 58. Lee, K.J. and Simpson, J.A. (2014). Introduction to multiple imputation for dealing with missing data. Respirology 19: 162–167.

59 59. Jakobsen, J.C., Gluud, C., Wetterslev, J. et al. (2017). When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials – a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874‐017‐0442‐1.

60 60. Donders, A.R., van der Heijden, G.J., Stijnen, T. et al. (2006). Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 59: 1087–1091.

61 61. Montedori, A., Bonacini, M.I., Casazza, G. et al. (2011). Modified versus standard intention‐to‐treat reporting: are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross‐sectional study. Trials https://doi.org/10.1186/1745‐6215‐12‐58.

62 62. Abraha, I., Cozzolino, F., Orso, M. et al. (2017). A systematic review found that deviations from intention‐to‐treat are common in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 84: 37–46.

63 63. Abraha, I. and Montedori, A. (2010). Modified intention to treat reporting in randomised controlled trials: systematic review. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2697.

64 64. Abraha, I., Cherubini, A., Cozzolino, F. et al. (2015). Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h2445.

65 65. Dossing, A., Tarp, S., Furst, D.E. et al. (2016). Modified intention‐to‐treat analysis did not bias trial results. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 72: 66–74.

Читать дальше
Тёмная тема
Сбросить

Интервал:

Закладка:

Сделать

Похожие книги на «Evidence in Medicine»

Представляем Вашему вниманию похожие книги на «Evidence in Medicine» списком для выбора. Мы отобрали схожую по названию и смыслу литературу в надежде предоставить читателям больше вариантов отыскать новые, интересные, ещё непрочитанные произведения.


Отзывы о книге «Evidence in Medicine»

Обсуждение, отзывы о книге «Evidence in Medicine» и просто собственные мнения читателей. Оставьте ваши комментарии, напишите, что Вы думаете о произведении, его смысле или главных героях. Укажите что конкретно понравилось, а что нет, и почему Вы так считаете.

x