Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies
Published 2016 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies
Authors
Keywords
Meta-analysis, Sequence analysis, Systematic reviews, Database searching, Drug administration, Measurement equipment, Research validity, Research reporting guidelines
Journal
PLoS One
Volume 11, Issue 7, Pages e0159267
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Online
2016-07-12
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0159267
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Are current standards of reporting quality for clinical trials sufficient in addressing important sources of bias?
- (2015) Edward J. Mills et al. Contemporary Clinical Trials
- Sample size calculation for meta-epidemiological studies
- (2015) Bruno Giraudeau et al. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
- What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study
- (2015) Susan Armijo-Olivo et al. BMJ Open
- Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
- (2015) I. Abraha et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Deviation from intention to treat analysis in randomised trials and treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
- (2015) I. Abraha et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.
- (2014) J Savović et al. HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
- Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors
- (2014) Asbjørn Hróbjartsson et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Bias due to lack of patient blinding in clinical trials. A systematic review of trials randomizing patients to blind and nonblind sub-studies
- (2014) Asbjørn Hróbjartsson et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study
- (2014) Lisa Hartling et al. PLoS One
- Methodological characteristics and treatment effect sizes in oral health randomised controlled trials: Is there a relationship? Protocol for a meta-epidemiological study
- (2014) Humam Saltaji et al. BMJ Open
- Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study
- (2014) Julie B Hansen et al. BMJ Open
- Interpreting trial results following use of different intention-to-treat approaches for preventing attrition bias: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
- (2014) A. Dossing et al. BMJ Open
- Correction: Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses
- (2013) Lise L. Gluud et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Single-Center Trials Show Larger Treatment Effects Than Multicenter Trials: Evidence From a Meta-epidemiologic Study
- (2013) Agnes Dechartres et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials
- (2013) Jelena Savović et al. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors
- (2013) A. Hrobjartsson et al. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
- Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study
- (2013) Anna Chaimani et al. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
- No evidence for intervention-dependent influence of methodological features on treatment effect
- (2013) Wilco C.H. Jacobs et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Single-center trials tend to provide larger treatment effects than multicenter trials: a systematic review
- (2013) Susanne Unverzagt et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Can trial quality be reliably assessed from published reports of cancer trials: evaluation of risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews
- (2013) C. L. Vale et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment
- (2013) O. A. Panagiotou et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
- (2013) A. Dechartres et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols
- (2012) Rahul Mhaskar et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Different methods of allocation to groups in randomized trials are associated with different levels of bias. A meta-epidemiological study
- (2011) Peter Herbison et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Stopping Randomized Trials Early for Benefit and Estimation of Treatment EffectsSystematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis
- (2010) Dirk Bassler JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: A meta-epidemiologic study
- (2009) Eveline Nüesch et al. ARTHRITIS AND RHEUMATISM
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
- (2009) David Moher et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study
- (2008) Lesley Wood et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
Add your recorded webinar
Do you already have a recorded webinar? Grow your audience and get more views by easily listing your recording on Peeref.
Upload NowAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started