Distinguishing between "no evidence of effect" and "evidence of no effect" in randomised controlled trials and other comparisons
Open Access
- 1 March 1999
- journal article
- annotation
- Published by BMJ in Archives of Disease in Childhood
- Vol. 80 (3) , 210-211
- https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.80.3.210
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- A review of randomised controlled trials published in Archives of Disease in Childhood from 1982-96Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1998
- Randomised controlled trials in perinatal medicine: 1. The need for studies of mortality and major morbidity with adequate powerBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1997
- Clinical trial reportingThe Lancet, 1996
- Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled TrialsJAMA, 1996
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA, 1996
- Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methodsBMJ, 1996
- Statistics notes: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absenceBMJ, 1995
- Antenatal corticosteroid therapy: A meta-analysis of the randomized trials, 1972 to 1994American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1995
- ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1995