Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are proper...
Guardado en:
Autores principales: | Georgina Imberger, Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby, Sara Bohnstedt Hansen, Ann M Møller, Jørn Wetterslev |
---|---|
Formato: | article |
Lenguaje: | EN |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/cd95805814474ef683caa31dc587a3b4 |
Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
Ejemplares similares
-
Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.
por: Susan Armijo-Olivo, et al.
Publicado: (2014) -
Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
por: Roland Brian Büchter, et al.
Publicado: (2021) - Lord Thomas Cochrane
-
Cochrane systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines: an overview.
por: Jing Hu, et al.
Publicado: (2011) -
The evidence base for interventions delivered to children in primary care: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews.
por: Peter J Gill, et al.
Publicado: (2011)