Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The good, the bad, and the ugly — Qualitätsmerkmale publizierter Studien

  • Chapter
Evidenzbasierte Medizin in Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin

  • 1260 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 14.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Altman DG (1996) Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ 313: 570–571

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG, Doré CJ (1990) Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 335: 149–153

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Amberson JR, McMahon BT, Pinner M (1931) A clinical trial of sanocrysin in pulmonary tuberculosis. Am Rev Tuberculosis 24: 401–435

    Google Scholar 

  4. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Drummond R, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF (1996) Improving the Quality of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials. JAMA 276: 637–639

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289: 454–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellomo R, Uchino S (2003) Cardiovascular monitoring tools: use and misuse. Curr Opin Crit Care 9: 225–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342: 1878–1886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Berlin JA, Drummond R (1999) Measuring the quality of Trials. JAMA 282: 1083–1085

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bobbio M, Demichelis B, Giustetto G (1994) Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians’ willingness to prescribe. Lancet 343: 1209–1211

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K (1994) Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 309: 761–764

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bull JP (1959) The historical development of clinical therapeutic trials. J Chron Dis 10: 218–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Carson JL, Hill S, Carless P, Hebert P, Henry D (2002) Transfusion triggers: a systematic review of the literature. Transfus Med Rev 16: 187–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chalmers I, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H (1983) Bias in Treatment Assignment in Controlled Clinical Trials. N Engl J Med 309: 1358–1361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chalmers TC, Matta RJ, Smith H, Jr., Kunzler AM (1977) Evidence favoring the use of anticoagulants in the hospital phase of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 297: 1091–1096

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Cho MK, Bero LA (1996) The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 124: 485–489

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Choi PT, Yip G, Quinonez LG, Cook DJ (1999) Crystalloids vs. colloids in fluid resuscitation: a systematic review. Crit Care Med 27: 200–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Clarke M, Chalmers I (1998) Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published in General Medical Journals — Islands in Search of Continents? JAMA 280: 280–282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F (1989) How study design affects outcomes in comparison of therapy I: Medical. Stat Med 8: 441–454

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI (2000) Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hirarchie of research designs. N Engl J Med 342: 1887–1892

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Connors-AF J, Speroff T, Dawson NV et al. (1996) The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients. SUPPORT Investigators. JAMA 276: 889–897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Connors AF (2002) Equipoise, power, and the pulmonary artery catheter. Intensive Care Med 28: 225–226

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Heyland DK, Griffith LE, Buckingham L, Tryba M (1996) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 275: 308–314

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO (1995) Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on Meta-Analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48: 167–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cronin L, Cook DJ, Carlet J, Heyland DK, King D, Lansang MA, Fisher-CJ J (1995) Corticosteroid treatment for sepsis: a critical appraisal and meta-analysis of the literature. Crit Care Med 23: 1430–1439

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Daniels M, Hill AB (1952) A clinical trial of sanocrysin in pulmonary tuberculosis. BMJ 1: 1162–1168

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ (2005) A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 9: R575–R582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. DerSimonian R, Charette LJ, McPeek B (1982) Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 306: 1332–1337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dickersin K (1990) The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurence. JAMA 263: 1385–1389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Evans M, Pollock AV (1984) Trials on trial. A review of trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. Arch Surg 119: 109–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Evans M, Pollock AV (1985) A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection. Br J Surg 72: 256–260

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Fisher LD (1999) Advances in clinical trials in the twentieth century. Annu Rev Public Health 20: 109–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher S, Greenberg RP (1993) How sound is the double-blind design for evaluating psychotropic drugs? J Nerv Ment Dis 181: 345–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM (1992) Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med 92: 121–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Kuebler RR (1978) The Importance of Beta, The Type II Error and Sample Size in the Design and Interpretation of the Randomized Controlled Trial. N Engl J Med 299: 690–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gillman MW, Runyan DK (1984) Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med 310: 1610–1611

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gotzsche PC (1987) Reference bias in reports of drug trials. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 295: 654–656

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Graf J, Doig GS, Cook DJ, Vincent JL, Sibbald WJ (2002) Randomized controlled clinical trials in sepsis: has methodological quality improved over time? Crit Care Med 30: 461–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Graf J, Janssens U (2001) Methodological study quality. JAMA 286: 2546

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Guyatt G, Cook D, Devereaux PJ, Meade M, Straus S (2002) Therapy.In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (Hrsg) Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature. AMA Press, Chicago, S 55–79

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hansen JB, Smithers BM, Schache D, Wall DR, Miller BJ, Menzies BL (1996) Laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial. World J Surg 20: 17–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Heyland DK, Cook DJ, King D, Kernerman P, Brun-Buisson C (1996) Maximizing oxygen delivery in critically ill patients: a methodologic appraisal of the evidence. Crit Care Med 24: 517–524

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Heyland DK, Guyatt G, Cook DJ, Meade M, Juniper E, Cronin L, Gafni A (1998) Frequency and methodologic rigor of quality-of-life assessments in the critical care literature. Crit Care Med 26: 591–598

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW (1998) Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis. JAMA 280: 2013–2019

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Heyland DK, Novak F, Drover JW, Jain M, Su X, Suchner U (2001) Should immunonutrition become routine in critically ill patients? A systematic review of the evidence. JAMA 286: 944–953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Heyland DK, Novak F, Drover JW, Jain M, Su X, Suchner U (2001) Should immunonutrition become routine in critically ill patients? A systematic review of the evidence. JAMA 286: 944–953

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hill AB (1952) The clinical trial. N Engl J Med 247: 113–119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hollis S, Campbell F (1999) What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ 319: 670–674

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hoppin FG (2002) How I review an original scientific article. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166: 1019–1023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Ingelfinger FJ (1972) The randomized clinical trial. N Engl J Med 287: 100–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Ioannidis JPA (1998) Effect of the Statistical Significance of Results on the Time to Completion and Publication of Randomized Efficacy Trials. JAMA 279: 281–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ioannidis JPA, Lau J (1998) Can quality of clinical trials and meta-analyses be quantified? Lancet 352: 590–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Jadad AR (1998) Randomised controlled trials. BMJ Books, London

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carrol D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ (1996) Assessing the Quality of Reports of Randomized Clinical Trials: Is Blinding Necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Jadad AR, Rennie D (1998) The Randomized Controlled Trial Gets a Middle-aged Checkup. JAMA 279: 319–320

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Janssens U, Graf J (2005) Einsch.tzung des Behandlungseffektes durch die »Number needed to treat« — Bedeutung auch für die Intensivmedizin? Intensivmed 42: 125–134

    Google Scholar 

  56. Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad AR (1996) The Importance of Quality of Primary Studies in Producing Unbiased Systematic Reviews. Arch Intern Med 156: 661–666

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kjaergard LL, Als-Nielsen B (2002) Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ 325: 249–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kleijnen J, ter Riet G, Knipschild P (1991) Acupuncture and asthma: a review of controlled trials. Thorax 46: 799–802

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Kunz R, Oxman AD (1998) The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and nonrandomised clinical trials. BMJ 317: 1185–1190

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A (2002) Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 28: 1316–1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS (1988) An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 318: 1728–1733

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Lefering R, Neugebauer EA (1995) Steroid controversy in sepsis and septic shock: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 23: 1294–1303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Liberati A, Himel HN, Chalmers TC (1986) A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4: 942–951

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. May GS, DeMets DL, Friedman LM, Furberg C, Passamani E (1981) The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis. Circulation 64: 669–673

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Maziak DE, Meade MO, Todd TR (1998) The timing of tracheotomy: a systematic review. Chest 114: 605–609

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F (1989) How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Stat Med 8: 455–466

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Moher D, Dullberg CS, Wells GH (1994) Statistical Power, Sample Size, and Their reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials. JAMA 272: 122–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Jüni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, Liberati A, Linde K, Penna A (1996) Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 347: 363–366

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S (1995) Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: An Annotated Bibliography of Scales and Checklists. Control Clin Trials 16: 62–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P (1996) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12: 195–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Moher D, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, Tugwell P, Klassen TP (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 352: 609–613

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L (2001) Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 285: 1992–1995

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285: 1987–1991

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK et al. (2005) Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA 294: 2203–2209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Moscucci M, Byrne L, Weintraub M, Cox C (1987) Blinding, unblinding, and the placebo effect: an analysis of patients’ guesses of treatment assignment in a double-blind clinical trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther 41: 259–265

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Mosteller F, Gilbert JP, McPeek B (1980) Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials: agenda for the editor. Control Clin Trials 1: 37–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Nathens AB, Marshall JC (1999) Selective decontamination of the digestive tract in surgical patients: a systematic review of the evidence. Arch Surg 134: 170–176

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B (1992) Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med 117: 916–921

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Newell DJ (1992) Intention-to-treat analysis: implications for quantitative and qualitative research. Int J Epidemiol 21: 837–841

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Ostermann ME, Keenan SP, Seiferling RA, Sibbald WJ (2000) Sedation in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. JAMA 283: 1451–1459

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Owen R (1982) Reader Bias. JAMA 247: 2533–2534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Palazzo M, Soni N (1998) Critical-care studies: redefining the rules. Lancet 352: 1306–1307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Pocock SJ (1979) Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics 35: 183–197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR (2000) Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 342: 1907–1909

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ (1987) Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med 317: 426–432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J (2003) Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ 327: 785–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Randolph AG, Cook DJ, Gonzales CA, Brun-Buisson C (1998) Tunneling short-term central venous catheters to prevent catheter-related infection: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Crit Care Med 26: 1452–1457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Ravnskov U (1992) Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. BMJ 305: 15–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Rennie D (1992) Publication Bias — The Triumph of Hope Over Experience. JAMA 267: 411–412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Rennie D (1995) Reporting randomized controlled trials. An experiment and a call for responses from readers. JAMA 273: 1054–1055

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Rhodes A, Cusack RJ, Newman PJ, Grounds RM, Bennett ED (2002) A randomised, controlled trial of the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med 28: 256–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, Chalmers TC (1994) A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 154: 157–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Sackett DL (1979) Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 32: 51–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Sacks H, Chalmers TC, Smith H, Jr. (1982) Randomized vs. historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med 72: 233–240

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Sandham JD, Hull RD, Brant RF, Knox L, Pineo GF, Doig CJ, Laporta DP, Viner S, Passerini L, Devitt H, Kirby A, Jacka M (2003) A randomized, controlled trial of the use of pulmonary-artery catheters in high-risk surgical patients. N Engl J Med 348: 5–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes JA, Altman DG (1995) Empirical Evidence of the Bias. JAMA 273: 408–412

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Schulz KF, Grimes DA, Altman DG, Hayes JA (1996) Blinding and exclusion after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. BMJ 312: 742–744

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Silverman WA (1981) Gnosis and Random Allotment. Control Clin Trials 2: 161–164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  100. Silverman WA, Chalmers I (1992) Sir Austin Bradford Hill: an appreciation. Control Clin Trials 13: 100–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Solomon MJ, Laxamana A, Devore L, McLeod RS (1994) Randomized controlled trials in surgery. Surgery 115: 707–712

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Sonis J, Joines J (1994) The quality of clinical trials published in The Journal of Family Practice, 1974—1991. J Fam Pract 39: 225–235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Talley NJ (1994) A critique of therapeutic trials in Helicobacter pylori-positive functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 106: 1174–1183

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. The Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature (1996) Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 124: 741–743

    Google Scholar 

  105. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group (1994) A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 272: 1926–1931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Tobin MJ (2002) Rigor of peer review and the standing of a journal. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166: 1013–1014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. van Nieuwenhoven CA, Buskens E, van Tiel FH, Bonten MJ (2001) Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients. JAMA 286: 335–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. van Nieuwenhoven CA, Buskens E, van Tiel FH, Bonten MJ (2001) Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients. JAMA 286: 335–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. van Nieuwenhoven CA, Buskens E, van Tiel FH, Bonten MJ (2001) Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients. JAMA 286: 335–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Wilkes MM, Navickis RJ (2001) Patient survival after human albumin administration. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 135: 149–164

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Zuckerman H, Merton RK (1971) Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalization, structure and function of the referee system. Minerva 9: 66–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Anästhesie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsklinikum, Gießen und Marburg GmbH, Standort Marburg Baldingerstraße, 35043, Marburg

    J. Graf (Dr.)

  2. Medizinische Klinik, St.-Antonius-Hospital, Dechant Deckers Str. 8, 52249, Eschweiler

    U. Janssens (Prof. Dr.)

Authors
  1. J. Graf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. U. Janssens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Graf, J., Janssens, U. (2007). The good, the bad, and the ugly — Qualitätsmerkmale publizierter Studien. In: Evidenzbasierte Medizin in Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-29946-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-29946-2_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-29633-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-29946-2

  • eBook Packages: Medicine (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation