1.
Systematic review of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials shows that design is particularly used to evaluate interventions during routine implementation
by Mdege, Noreen D
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2011, Vol.64 (9), p.936-948
2.
A systematic review of discontinued trials suggested that most reasons for recruitment failure were preventable
by Briel, Matthias, MD, MSc
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2016, Vol.80, p.8-15
3.
Research participation effects: a skeleton in the methodological cupboard
by McCambridge, Jim
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2014, Vol.67 (8), p.845-849
4.
De testimonio : on the evidence for decisions about the use of therapeutic interventions
by Rawlins, Michael, Prof
The Lancet (British edition), 2008, Vol.372 (9656), p.2152-2161
5.
Specific instructions for estimating unclearly reported blinding status in randomized trials were reliable and valid
by Akl, Elie A
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2012, Vol.65 (3), p.262-267
6.
Blinded interpretation of study results can feasibly and effectively diminish interpretation bias
by Järvinen, Teppo L.N
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2014, Vol.67 (7), p.769-772
7.
Selective outcome reporting is present in randomized controlled trials in lung cancer immunotherapies
by Aggarwal, Reenika
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019-02, Vol.106, p.145-146
8.
Reporting and methodological quality of sample size calculations in cluster randomized trials could be improved: a review
by Rutterford, Clare
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015, Vol.68 (6), p.716-723
9.
Baseline P value distributions in randomized trials were uniform for continuous but not categorical variables
by Bolland, Mark J
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019-08, Vol.112, p.67-76
10.
Funders improved the management of learning and clustering effects through design and analysis of randomized trials involving surgery
by Conroy, Elizabeth J
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019, Vol.113, p.28-35
11.
Retrieval of individual patient data depended on study characteristics: a randomized controlled trial
by Veroniki, Areti Angeliki
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019, Vol.113, p.176-188
12.
Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research
by Glasziou, Paul, Prof
The Lancet (British edition), 2014, Vol.383 (9913), p.267-276
13.
Extremely large outlier treatment effects may be a footprint of bias in trials from less developed countries: randomized trials of gabapentinoids
by Desai, Karishma
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019-02, Vol.106, p.80-87
14.
Clinical trials in crisis: Four simple methodologic fixes
by Vickers, Andrew J
Clinical trials (London, England), 2014-12, Vol.11 (6), p.615-621
15.
A systematic review finds underreporting of ethics approval, informed consent, and incentives in clinical trials
by Trung, Ly Quoc
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017-11, Vol.91, p.80-86
16.
False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies
by Glickman, Mark E
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2014, Vol.67 (8), p.850-857
17.
Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems
by Anderson, Monique L
Clinical trials (London, England), 2015-06, Vol.12 (3), p.276-286
18.
Importance of including harms as well as benefits in all clinical trials
by Tugwell, Peter
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018-03, Vol.95, p.v-vi
19.
Existing reporting guidelines for clinical trials are not completely relevant for implantable medical devices: a systematic review
by Motte, Anne-France
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2017-11, Vol.91, p.111-120
20.
Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a “trial effect”
by Braunholtz, David A
Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2001, Vol.54 (3), p.217-224
