Institution
Cochrane Collaboration
Nonprofit•Oxford, United Kingdom•
About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The CONSORT extension to randomised crossover trials is presented, which aims to facilitate better reporting of crossover trials and revision of the CONSORT 2010 checklist is revised for crossover designs.
Abstract: Evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials is not optimal. The lack of transparent reporting impedes readers from judging the reliability and validity of trial findings, prevents researchers from extracting information for systematic reviews, and results in research waste. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. The primary focus of the statement was on parallel group trials with two treatment groups. Crossover trials are a particular type of trial for chronic conditions in which participants are randomised to a sequence of interventions. They are a useful and efficient design because participants act as their own control. However, the reporting of crossover trials has been variable and incomplete, which hinders their use in clinical decision making and by future researchers. We present the CONSORT extension to randomised crossover trials, which aims to facilitate better reporting of crossover trials. The CONSORT 2010 checklist is revised for crossover designs, and introduces a modified flowchart and baseline table to enhance transparency. Examples of good reporting and evidence based rationale for CONSORT crossover checklist items are provided.
263 citations
••
TL;DR: Spin in abstracts can have an impact on clinicians' interpretation of the trial results and there was no statistically significant difference in the clinicians' rating of the importance of the study or the need to run another trial.
Abstract: Purpose We aimed to assess the impact of spin (ie, reporting to convince readers that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment is greater than shown by the results) on the interpretation of results of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of cancer. Methods We performed a two-arm, parallel-group RCT. We selected a sample of published RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcome and with spin in the abstract conclusion. Two versions of these abstracts were used—the original with spin and a rewritten version without spin. Participants were clinician corresponding authors of articles reporting RCTs, investigators of trials, and reviewers of French national grants. The primary outcome was clinicians' interpretation of the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment (0 to 10 scale). Participants were blinded to study hypothesis. Results Three hundred clinicians were randomly assigned using a Web-based system; 150 clinicians assessed an abstract with spin and 150...
263 citations
••
University of Pennsylvania1, University of Toronto2, McMaster University3, Cochrane Collaboration4, Mahidol University5, Johns Hopkins University6, Albert Einstein College of Medicine7, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital8, Columbia University9, McGill University10, Leiden University Medical Center11, Yale University12, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile13, Kaiser Permanente14, University of Geneva15, Washington University in St. Louis16, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute17, American University of Beirut18, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton19, University of Guadalajara20, King Hussein Cancer Center21, University of Chicago22, University of Freiburg23
TL;DR: The evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19-related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) as mentioned in this paper.
263 citations
••
TL;DR: All available caesarean section rates worldwide at the country level are compiled to identify the appropriate caesAREan section rate at the population level associated with the minimal maternal and neonatal mortality.
259 citations
Authors
Showing all 2000 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Douglas G. Altman | 253 | 1001 | 680344 |
John P. A. Ioannidis | 185 | 1311 | 193612 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
George A. Wells | 149 | 941 | 114256 |
Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
Holger J. Schünemann | 141 | 810 | 113169 |
Paul G. Shekelle | 132 | 601 | 101639 |
Peter Tugwell | 129 | 948 | 125480 |
Jeremy M. Grimshaw | 123 | 691 | 115126 |
Peter Jüni | 121 | 593 | 99254 |
John J. McGrath | 120 | 791 | 124804 |
Arne Astrup | 114 | 866 | 68877 |
Mike Clarke | 113 | 1037 | 164328 |
Rachelle Buchbinder | 112 | 613 | 94973 |
Ian Roberts | 112 | 714 | 51933 |