Información del artículo
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
REFERENCES
[1.]
A dictionary of epidemiology,
[2.]
B. Haynes.
Conducting systematic reviews.
Clinical epidemiology: how to do clinical practice research, 3rd edition,
[3.]
M. Clarke.
Can you believe what you read in the papers?.
Trials, 10 (2009), pp. 55
[4.]
A.C. Tricco, J. Tetzlaff, D. Moher.
The art and science of knowledge synthesis.
J Clin Epidemiol, 64 (2011), pp. 11-20
[5.]
P. Jüni, A. Witschi, R. Bloch.
The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 1054-1060
[6.]
P. Jüni, D.G. Altman, M. Egger.
Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.
BMJ, 323 (2001), pp. 42-46
[7.]
A. Hróbjartsson, E. Forfang, M.T. Haahr.
Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding.
Int J Epidemiol, 36 (2007), pp. 654-663
[8.]
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0.
[9.]
L. Bero, F. Oostvogel, P. Bacchetti.
Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others.
PLoS Med, 4 (2007), pp. e184
[10.]
J. Lexchin, L.A. Bero, B. Djulbegovic.
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.
BMJ., 326 (2003), pp. 1167-1170
[11.]
J.C. Van Luijn, A.C. van Loenen, F.W. Gribnau.
Choice of comparator in active control trials of new drugs.
Ann Pharmacother, 42 (2008), pp. 1605-1612
[12.]
A.J. Sutton, J.P. Higgins.
Recent developments in metaanalysis.
Stat Med., 27 (2008), pp. 625-650
[13.]
A.W. Chan, A. Hróbjartsson, M.T. Haahr.
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
JAMA., 291 (2004), pp. 2457-2465
[14.]
K. Dwan, D.G. Altman, J.A. Arnaiz.
Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.
PLoS One., 3 (2008), pp. e3081
[15.]
S. Parekh-Bhurke, C.S. Kwok, C. Pang.
Uptake of methods to deal with publication bias in systematic reviews has increased over time, but there is still much scope for improvement.
J Clin Epidemiol., 64 (2011), pp. 349-357
[16.]
F. Song, S. Parekh-Bhurke, L. Hooper.
Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 9 (2009), pp. 79
[17.]
S.R. Schulman, C. Schardt, T.O. Erb.
Evidence-based medicine in anesthesiology.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, 15 (2002), pp. 661-668
[19.]
T. Pedersen, A.M. Møller, J. Cracknell.
The mission of the Cochrane anesthesia review group: preparing and disseminating Systematic Reviews of the effect of health care in anesthesiology.
Anesth Analg, 95 (2002), pp. 1012-1018
[20.]
A.F. Smith, A.J. Pittaway.
Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3 (2000), pp. CD002192
[21.]
J. Carlisle, C.A. Stevenson.
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3 (2006), pp. CD004125
[22.]
A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff.
The PRISMA statement for reporting Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.
BMJ, 339 (2009), pp. b2700
[23.]
H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann.
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.
J Clin Epidemiol, 64 (2011), pp. 401-406
Copyright © 2011. Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología
Opciones de artículo