Advanced search    

Search: authors:"Douglas G. Altman"

118 papers found.
Use AND, OR, NOT, +word, -word, "long phrase", (parentheses) to fine-tune your search.

Poor reporting of multivariable prediction model studies: towards a targeted implementation strategy of the TRIPOD statement

As complete reporting is essential to judge the validity and applicability of multivariable prediction models, a guideline for the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) was introduced. We assessed the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies published just before the introduction of the TRIPOD...

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: An updated systematic review and involvement of low and middle income countries

: Katherine Davis, Paula R. Williamson. Writing ± review & editing: Katherine Davis, Sarah L. Gorst, Nicola Harman, Valerie Smith, Elizabeth Gargon, Douglas G. Altman, Jane M. Blazeby, Mike Clarke, Sean Tunis

Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles

Although biomarkers are perceived as highly relevant for future clinical practice, few biomarkers reach clinical utility for several reasons. Among them, poor reporting of studies is one of the major problems. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) studies were introduced several years ago. The aims of this project were to assess...

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial

The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the...

Do declarative titles affect readers’ perceptions of research findings? A randomized trial

Background Many journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers’ perceptions about the strength of evidence in a research abstract describing a randomized trial. Methods Study participants (medical or dental students or...

Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015

. Reitsma 2 David E. Bruns 8 Constantine A. Gatsonis 7 Paul P. Glasziou 6 Les Irwig 5 David Moher 9 10 Henrica C. W. de Vet 4 Douglas G. Altman 11 Lotty Hooft 12 Patrick M. M. Bossuyt 1 0 Equal contributors

Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations

Department of Epidemiology and Department of Statistics, University of California , Los Angeles, CA , USA 9 Douglas G. Altman Misinterpretation and abuse of statistical tests, confidence intervals, and

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2015

Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Although final decisions are always editorial, they are greatly facilitated by the deeper technical knowledge, scientific insights, understanding of social consequences, and passion that reviewers bring to our...

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey

Background A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent...

Four Proposals to Help Improve the Medical Research Literature

David Moher and Douglas Altman outline four potential interventions that may improve the quality of peer-reviewed medical research publications.

Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial

Background Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We performed a ‘split-manuscript’ RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were...

Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial

Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a ‘split-manuscript’ RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral...

Assessment of the Incremental Benefit of Computer-Aided Detection (CAD) for Interpretation of CT Colonography by Experienced and Inexperienced Readers

Objectives To quantify the incremental benefit of computer-assisted-detection (CAD) for polyps, for inexperienced readers versus experienced readers of CT colonography. Methods 10 inexperienced and 16 experienced radiologists interpreted 102 colonography studies unassisted and with CAD utilised in a concurrent paradigm. They indicated any polyps detected on a study sheet. Readers...

Thanks to all those who reviewed for Trials in 2014

Contributing reviewers A peer-reviewed journal would not survive without the generous time and insightful comments of the reviewers, whose efforts often go unrecognized. Although final decisions are always editorial, they are greatly facilitated by the deeper technical knowledge, scientific insights, understanding of social consequences, and passion that reviewers bring to our...

Is the relationship among outcome variables shown in randomized trials?

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often have more than one primary outcome and frequently have secondary and harm outcomes. Comparison of outcomes between study arms is the primary focus of RCTs, but there are times when the relation between outcomes is important, such as determining whether an intermediate outcome and a clinical outcome have a strong association. We...