Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 50

1.
2.

Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance.

Hakoum MB, Jouni N, Abou-Jaoude EA, Hasbani DJ, Abou-Jaoude EA, Lopes LC, Khaldieh M, Hammoud MZ, Al-Gibbawi M, Anouti S, Guyatt G, Akl EA.

BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 5;7(10):e015997. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015997.

5.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: a case study analysis of guidelines from the Canadian Medical Association Infobase.

Shnier A, Lexchin J, Romero M, Brown K.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Aug 15;16(a):383. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1646-5.

6.

How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards.

Rooney AA, Cooper GS, Jahnke GD, Lam J, Morgan RL, Boyles AL, Ratcliffe JM, Kraft AD, Schünemann HJ, Schwingl P, Walker TD, Thayer KA, Lunn RM.

Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:617-29. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.005. Epub 2016 Feb 6.

7.

Research Misconduct: The Peril of Publish or Perish.

Al-Adawi S, Ali BH, Al-Zakwani I.

Oman Med J. 2016 Jan;31(1):5-11. doi: 10.5001/omj.2016.02. Review.

8.

Assessment of Web-Based Consumer Reviews as a Resource for Drug Performance.

Adusumalli S, Lee H, Hoi Q, Koo SL, Tan IB, Ng PC.

J Med Internet Res. 2015 Aug 28;17(8):e211. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4396.

9.

Evidence from Toxicology: The Most Essential Science for Prevention.

Mandrioli D, Silbergeld EK.

Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Jan;124(1):6-11. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1509880. Epub 2015 Jun 19.

11.

A new method for scoring financial conflicts of interest.

Maharaj SV.

Int J Occup Environ Health. 2015;21(1):49-52. doi: 10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000097.

12.
13.

The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes.

Woodruff TJ, Sutton P.

Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Oct;122(10):1007-14. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307175. Epub 2014 Jun 25. Review.

14.

Nonindustry-sponsored preclinical studies on statins yield greater efficacy estimates than industry-sponsored studies: a meta-analysis.

Krauth D, Anglemyer A, Philipps R, Bero L.

PLoS Biol. 2014 Jan;12(1):e1001770. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001770. Epub 2014 Jan 21.

15.

In Support of EHP's Proposal to Adopt the ARRIVE Guidelines.

Vesterinen HM, Johnson PI, Koustas E, Lam J, Sutton P, Woodruff TJ.

Environ Health Perspect. 2013 Nov-Dec;121(11-12):A325. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307775. No abstract available.

16.

The Drug Facts Box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information.

Schwartz LM, Woloshin S.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Aug 20;110 Suppl 3:14069-74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1214646110. Epub 2013 Aug 13.

17.

When are statins cost-effective in cardiovascular prevention? A systematic review of sponsorship bias and conclusions in economic evaluations of statins.

Catalá-López F, Sanfélix-Gimeno G, Ridao M, Peiró S.

PLoS One. 2013 Jul 8;8(7):e69462. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069462. Print 2013. Review.

18.

Characteristics of antimicrobial studies registered in the USA through ClinicalTrials.Gov.

Stockmann C, Sherwin CM, Ampofo K, Hersh AL, Pavia AT, Byington CL, Ward RM, Spigarelli MG.

Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2013 Aug;42(2):161-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2013.04.019. Epub 2013 May 30.

19.

Strategies for obtaining unpublished drug trial data: a qualitative interview study.

Wolfe N, Gøtzsche PC, Bero L.

Syst Rev. 2013 May 16;2:31. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-31.

20.

The cycle of bias in health research: a framework and toolbox for critical appraisal training.

Odierna DH, Forsyth SR, White J, Bero LA.

Account Res. 2013;20(2):127-41. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2013.768931.

Supplemental Content

Support Center