Randomised controlled trials from the critical care literature: identification and assessment of quality

References

• Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, et al. Clinical Epidemi-ology: A basic science for clinical medicine. Toronto: Little, Brown, 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, et al. A Comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatment for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268(2): 240–248.
   Google Scholar
• Peto R. Why do we need systematic overviews of random-ised controlled trials? Stat. Med. 1987; 6(3): 233–240.
   Google Scholar
• Cook DJ, Sibbald WJ, Vincent JL, Cerra FB. Evidence based critical care medicine; what is it and what can it do for us? Evidence Based Medicine in Critical Care Group. Critical Care Med. 1996; 24(2): 334–337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic atti tudes in therapeutical trials. J. Chronic Dis. 1967; 20(8): 637–648.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anonymous. Systematic overview of controlled trials (meta-analyses) helps clarify treatment effects. Drugs Ther. Bull. 1992: 30(7): 25–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chalmers I, Hetherington J, Newdick M, et al. The Oxford Database of Perinatal Trials: developing a register of pub-lished reports of controlled trials. Control Clinical Trials 1986; 7(4): 306–324.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chalmers I, Dickersin K, Chalmers TC. Getting to grips with Archie Cochrane‘s agenda [editorial]. BMJ. 1992; 305 (6857): 786–788.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994; 309(6964): 1286–1291.
   Google Scholar
• Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994; 272(2): 158–162.
   Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Min YI. NIFI clinical trials and publication bias. Online J. Curr. Clinical Trials [serial online] 1993; Doc No 50.
   Google Scholar
• Anonymous. Cochrane‘s legacy (editorial). Lancet. 1992; 340(8828): 1131–1132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Cochrane Library. Oxford : Update Software. Issue 2, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• ULRICH‘s Plus [database on CDROM]. New Providence (NJ): RR Bower/Reed Reference Electronic Publishing; Win-ter 1992-1993.
   Google Scholar
• Medline, OVID for windows 3.0 release version 5.3. OVID copyright. New York, 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ. Clinical Trials. A practical Approach. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Larson K. Establishing and Maintaining an International Register of RCTs . Chapter V. in Sackett D, Oxman A (eds): Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford: 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Langham J, Thompson E, Rowan K. "Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand-searching versus MEDLINE searching." Ann. Emerg. Med. 1999; 34(1): 25–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald SJ, Lefebvre C, Clarke MJ. Identifying reports of controlled trials in the BMJ and the Lancet. BMJ 1996; 313(7065): 1116–1117.
   Google Scholar
• Cochrane Collaboration. CENTRAL: the building blocks of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane News Letter. Issue 11, page 1, July 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276(8): 637–639.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Human albumin administration in critically ill pat-ients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Injuries Group. BMJ, 1998; 317(7153): 235–240.
   Google Scholar
• Altman DG, Dore CJ: Randomisation and baseline comp-arisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990; 335: 149–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, et al: Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynaecology journals. JAMA, 1994; 272: 125–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al: Empirical evidence of Bias. Dimensions of the methodological quality associ-ated with Estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA, 1995; 273: 408–412.
   Google Scholar