Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

I Chalmers

Publications and source records attributed to I Chalmers.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents?

CONTEXT: Several journals have adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to make assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) easier. One of these recommendations is that the trial's results be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which reports of RCTs published in 5 general medical journals have discussed new results in light of all available evidence. DESIGN: Assessment of the discussion sections in all 26 reports of RCTs published during May 1997 in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The inclusion or mention of a systematic review in the discussion section of each article. RESULTS: In only 2 articles were the RCT's results discussed in the context of an updated systematic review of earlier trials. In a further 4 articles, references were made to relevant systematic reviews, but no attempts were made to integrate the results of the new trials in updated versions of these reviews. One article was probably the first published trial to address the question studied. The remaining 19 articles included no evidence that any systematic attempt had been made to set the reported trial's results in the context of previous trials. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence that journals have adequately implemented the CONSORT recommendation that results of an RCT be discussed in light of the totality of the available evidence.

Periodicals as Topic↗
PubMed1998

A flow diagram to facilitate selection of interventions and research for health care.

Decisions about health care should be informed by systematic review of valid research evidence on the effects of interventions on health outcomes that matter. If systematic review suggests it is likely that a health care intervention does more good than harm in some settings, questions must be addressed about the local applicability of the intervention, its cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of implementation. If systematic review suggests that it is unlikely that an intervention does more good than harm in any setting, its use should be discouraged, while existing interventions are improved or alternative interventions developed. If it is uncertain whether an intervention does more good than harm, further analysis of existing data or new controlled trials are required. The article contains a flow diagram, which provides a structure for making such decisions.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1996

Are research ethics committees behaving unethically? Some suggestions for improving performance and accountability.

The results of recent empirical investigations in research synthesis imply that research ethics committees are behaving unethically by endorsing new research which is unnecessary and by acquiescing in biased under-reporting of research which they have approved. The performance and accountability of research ethics committees would be improved if they required those proposing research to present systematic reviews of relevant previous research in support of their applications; to summarise the results of these reviews in the information prepared for potential participants; to register new controlled trials at inception; and to ensure that the results of these trials are made publicly available within a reasonable period of time after completion of data collection.

Bias↗