Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals.
Open Access
- 5 June 2002
- journal article
- quality issues-and-standards
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA
- Vol. 287 (21) , 2799-2801
- https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.21.2799
Abstract
Reliable interpretation of the results of a controlled trial entails setting its results in the context of similar research. A previous study showed that most reports of controlled trials published in 5 general medical journals in May 1997 were deficient in this respect. We assessed the extent to which reports of controlled trials published in the same 5 journals discussed new results in light of the totality of evidence from other controlled trials.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- WHO antenatal care randomised trial for the evaluation of a new model of routine antenatal careThe Lancet, 2001
- Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: a randomised trialThe Lancet, 2001
- WHO systematic review of randomised controlled trials of routine antenatal careThe Lancet, 2001
- The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trialsThe Lancet, 2001
- The function of the discussion section in academic medical writingBMJ, 2000
- How can medical journals help prevent poor medical research? Some opportunities presented by electronic publishingThe Lancet, 1999
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA, 1996