Assessing reports of therapeutic trials.

Psychosomatic medicine and evidence-based treatment

Evaluation des facteurs de risque préopératoires

Reviewing previously published literature seems time-consuming and boring when compared to performing clinical or laboratory experiments to develop new information in surgery. For this reason, the task of reviewing and summarizing the literature is often delegated to a research assistant or the most junior member of the team.

Systematically Reviewing Previous Work

Introduction: Industry/Regulatory Agencies Semi-impasse on Drug Submissions/Applications (leneral Ameliorating Measures Descriptions of the Clinical Trial Planning the Trial (in Broad Terms) Relative to Time, Realism, and Communication What the Clinical Investigator Understands What the Statistical Advisor Understands Objectives of the Trial Cooperative Field and Institution Trials Staffing and Equipment Protocol Points and the Necessity for Biostatistics Self-Queries in Designing the Trial Controls, Their Necessity and Nature Selection of Subjects (Number, Population, Sample, Definition) 233 Types of Treatments (Specific, Con234 trol, Placebo, Supportive, Con234 comitant, etc.) Allocation of Subjects to Treatments (Randomization and Stra235 tification) Definition of Data, Primary and 236 Secondary Evaluation of Treatment Effects 236 (Criteria) 236 Assessment of Study Results (Clinical and Statistical Significance, 237 Protocol Deviations) 237 Final Report (Checklist) Conclusions, Including Future Tm238 peratives 238 Summary, Choice of Investigators, and Monitoring 240 References

Management of clinical research "architecture".

El proceso de revision y evaluacion de manuscritos, conocido como arbitraje cientifico o revision por expertos (peer review), supone actualmente un paso que se considera necesario para la divulgacion de los avances cientificos de una determinada disciplina. Cuando una revista recibe un articulo, sus editores suelen recurrir a revisores del propio comite de expertos o, en muchas ocasiones, a revisores externos (peer reviewer, referee) que, despues de la lectura detenida del manuscrito, evaluan la idoneidad de su publicacion atendiendo, entre otros aspectos, al cumplimiento de determinados requisitos de calidad, la coherencia de los resultados y las conclusiones que se presentan. De ahi puede deducirse el incuestionable papel que los revisores tienen en la calidad de las revistas cientificas 1 . Sin embargo, este proceso de revision, en su conjunto, no esta exento de criticas y, por este motivo, se ha reclamado un cambio de mentalidad a fin de mejorarlo de forma sustancial 2,3 . En el cuarto congreso internacional sobre revision por expertos en revistas biomedicas (Peer Review in Biomedical Publications, Barcelona 2001) se discutieron algunos problemas del proceso de revision y se propusieron determinadas alternativas de mejora 4

/pdf/lista-de-comprobacion-checklist-abreviada-para-la-evaluacion-5drno3z4nb.pdf

Assessing reports of therapeutic trials.

Citations

Psychosomatic medicine and evidence-based treatment

Evaluation des facteurs de risque préopératoires

Systematically Reviewing Previous Work

Management of clinical research "architecture".

Lista de comprobación (checklist) abreviada para la evaluación de artículos de investigación biomédica básica