Journal of clinical epidemiology

• 

  Año 2006, Número 8

  • Interpreting observational studies¿look before you leap

    Deepak L. Bhatt, Anthony A. Bavry

    págs. 763-764

    

  • Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews

    George Peat, Peter Croft, Christian Mallen

    págs. 765-769

    

  • Summaries of findings, descriptions of interventions, and information about adverse effects would make reviews more informative

    Victoria Pennick, Michelle Kho, Claire Glenton, Vigdis Underland, Andrew D. Oxman

    págs. 770-778

    

  • Family practices registration networks contributed to primary care research

    Wim de Grauw, Chris van Weel

    págs. 779-783

    

  • A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval

    Ann M. Geiger, Sarah M. Greene

    págs. 784-790

    

  • Health care utilization: measurement using primary care records and patient recall both showed bias

    Peter Croft, Kelvin Jordan, Clare Jinks

    págs. 791-797

    

  • Post hoc choice of cut points introduced bias to diagnostic research

    Ben Ewald

    págs. 798-801

    

  • Administrative data accurately identified intensive care unit admissions in Ontario

    Donald A. Redelmeier, Jun Guan, Damon C. Scales, Claudio M. Martin

    págs. 802-807

    

  • Four different study designs to evaluate vaccine safety were equally validated with contrasting limitations

    David L. McClure, Ken Kleinman, Eric K. France, Margarette S. Kolczak, Jason M. Glanz, John P. Mullooly, Stanley Xu, Simon J. Hambidge, Martin Lee

    págs. 808-818

    

  • Selective prescribing led to overestimation of the benefits of lipid-lowering drugs

    Sebastian Schneeweiss, Philip S. Wang, Jerry Avorn, Raia Levin, Robert J. Glynn

    págs. 819-828

    

  • Predictors identified for losses to follow-up among HIV-seropositive patients

    Dominique Costagliola, Rosemary Dray-Spira, Murielle Mary-Krause, Patricia Fischer, Pierre Tattevin, France Lert, Yolande Obadia, Emilie Lanoy, Claudine Duvivier

    págs. 829-835

    

  • The SCREEN I (Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition) index adequately represents nutritional risk

    Heather H. Keller

    págs. 836-841

    

  • Peering at peer review revealed high degree of chance associated with funding of grant applications

    Judith Ritchie, Mark S. Goldberg, Marina B. Klein, Sydney Miller, James Brophy, Nancy E. Mayo, Robert W. Platt

    págs. 842-848

    

  • A user's guide to selecting a comorbidity index for clinical research

    Stephen F. Hall

    págs. 849-855

    

  • International classification of diseases and current procedural terminology codes underestimated thrombolytic use for ischemic stroke

    Jawad F. Kirmani, Faisal Siddiqi, Pansy Harris-Lane, Adnan I. Qureshi

    págs. 856-858

    

  • The kappa statistic was representative of empirically observed inter-rater agreement for physical findings

    Marc H. Gorelick, Kenneth Yen

    págs. 859-861

    

  • Clinicians didn't reliably distinguish between different causes of cardiac death using case histories

    Adrian Warfield, Richard Wilson, Jayne Parry, Jonathan Mant, Sue Wilson, Terry Quirke, Will Murdoch, Michael Gammage, Rebecca Harrison, Pam Bridge, Michael Davies

    págs. 862-867

    

  • Reassurance that there is no serious disease seems essential in the development of benign pain complaints

    Arnoud Arntz

    págs. 868-869

    

  • Comment on `Pain patients in a randomized trial did not show a significant effect of a positive consultation¿

    Tim olde Hartman, Peter Lucassen, Machteld Borghuis, Eric van Rijswijk

    pág. 868