［1］Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of effects in controlled trials[J]. JAMA, 1995; 273(5):408-412.
2.
［2］Torgerson DJ, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials: randomization methods: concealment[J]. BMJ, 1999; 319(7 206):375-356.
3.
［3］Schulz, Kenneth F. Subverting randomization in controlled trials[J]. JAMA, 1995; 274(18):1 456-1 458.
［5］Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals[J]. JAMA, 1994; 272(2):125-128.
1. ［1］Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of effects in controlled trials[J]. JAMA, 1995; 273(5):408-412.
2. ［2］Torgerson DJ, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials: randomization methods: concealment[J]. BMJ, 1999; 319(7 206):375-356.
3. ［3］Schulz, Kenneth F. Subverting randomization in controlled trials[J]. JAMA, 1995; 274(18):1 456-1 458.
5. ［5］Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals[J]. JAMA, 1994; 272(2):125-128.
1/5
微信公眾號