Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5 C5902969!5902969!29661214     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 267.2 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Syst+Rev 2018 ; 7 (ä): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29661214|t=2018. Does information from ClinicalTrials gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series |pdf=|usr=}}{{29661214}} gab.com Text Does information from ClinicalTrials gov increase transparency and reduce bias Results from a five-report case series JO: Syst Rev http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29661214 #FOAvip Background: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review?s last literature search, screened the records using the review?s eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov?s inception date of 2000. Conclusion: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects. Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Twit Text FOAVip Does information from ClinicalTrials gov increase transparency and reduce bias Results from a five-report case series ????Syst Rev http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29661214 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29661214 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29661214}}</ref> Does information from ClinicalTrials gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series #MMPMID29661214 Adam GP; Springs S; Trikalinos T; Williams JW; Eaton JL; Von Isenburg M; Gierisch JM; Wilson LM; Robinson KA; Viswanathan M; Middleton JC; Forman-Hoffman VL; Berliner E; Kaplan RM Syst Rev 2018[]; 7 (ä): ä PMID29661214show ga Background: We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method: We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review?s last literature search, screened the records using the review?s eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results: Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov?s inception date of 2000. Conclusion: Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects. Electronic supplementary material: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0726-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. äDoes information from ClinicalTrials gov increase transparency and red(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing