Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case
Abstract
Randomized clinical trials underpin evidence‐based clinical practice, but flaws in their conduct may lead to biased estimates of intervention effects and hence invalid treatment recommendations. The main approach to the empirical study of bias is to collate a number of meta‐analyses and, within each, compare the results of trials with and without a methodological characteristic such as blinding of participants and health professionals. Estimated...
Paper Details
Title
Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case
Published Date
Jan 20, 2020
Journal
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
260 - 274
Citation AnalysisPro
You’ll need to upgrade your plan to Pro
Looking to understand the true influence of a researcher’s work across journals & affiliations?
- Scinapse’s Top 10 Citation Journals & Affiliations graph reveals the quality and authenticity of citations received by a paper.
- Discover whether citations have been inflated due to self-citations, or if citations include institutional bias.
Notes
History