Assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials
Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, ISSN: 1121-189X, Vol: 19, Issue: 4, Page: 296-297
2010
- 11Citations
- 12Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Even though randomised controlled trials are the design of choice for evaluating the efficacy of health care interventions, they are not immune to bias that may affect research process and validity of results. In the present paper we discussed how trial quality may be appraised considering both whether a clinical trial is reported in a comprehensive and complete way (consistently with what had been declared in the study protocol), and whether the characteristics of the trial itself are associated with risk of bias.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know