Very large treatment effects in randomised trials as an empirical marker to indicate whether subsequent trials are necessary: meta-epidemiological assessment
<strong>Objective:</strong> Most healthcare interventions provide modest benefits, but occasionally trials report very large improvements over existing treatments or inactive controls. This often leads to speculation that further trials may be unnecessary. We examined whether a very larg...
Auteurs principaux: | Nagendran, M, Pereira, T, Kiew, G, Altman, D, Maruthappu, M, Ioannidis, J, McCulloch, P |
---|---|
Format: | Journal article |
Langue: | English |
Publié: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Documents similaires
-
Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study
par: Nagendran, M, et autres
Publié: (2013) -
Epidemiology of recent randomised controlled trials
par: Chan, A, et autres
Publié: (2003) -
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials
par: Chan, A, et autres
Publié: (2003) -
Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals.
par: Chan, A, et autres
Publié: (2005) -
THEORETICAL STUDY OF REGIONAL STRATEGIES: WHETHER THEY ARE NECESSARY?
par: VLADIMIR YURIEVICH Malov
Publié: (2018-04-01)