Bewertung des Biasrisikos (Risiko systematischer Fehler) in klinischen Studien : ein Manual für die Leitlinienerstellung
- Standort
-
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main
- Umfang
-
Online-Ressource
- Sprache
-
Deutsch
- Schlagwort
-
Bias
Klinisches Experiment
Iatrogene Krankheit
Therapie
Compliance
- Ereignis
-
Veröffentlichung
- (wo)
-
Freiburg
- (wer)
-
Universität
- (wann)
-
2016
- DOI
-
10.6094/UNIFR/10926
- URN
-
urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-109261
- Rechteinformation
-
Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.
- Letzte Aktualisierung
-
25.03.2025, 13:43 MEZ
Datenpartner
Dieses Objekt wird bereitgestellt von:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. Bei Fragen zum Objekt wenden Sie sich bitte an den Datenpartner.
Beteiligte
Entstanden
- 2016
Ähnliche Objekte (12)
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale
Willingness to participate in, support or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey
Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale
Willingness to participate in, support or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey
Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal
Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance
Wissenschaftliche Publikationspraxis in der klinischen Medizin : Wissenstransfer als Voraussetzung für evidenzbasierte Medizin
Protocol for the development of the Chatbot Assessment Reporting Tool (CHART) for clinical advice
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
GRADE equity guidelines 1: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: introduction and rationale
Willingness to participate in, support or carry out scientific studies for benefit assessment of available medical interventions: a stakeholder survey
Systematic reviews should be at the heart of continuing medical education
Public information needs and preferences on COVID-19: a cross-sectional study
Improving the trustworthiness of findings from nutrition evidence syntheses: assessing risk of bias and rating the certainty of evidence
Developing trustworthy recommendations as part of an urgent response (1-2 weeks): a GRADE concept paper
GRADE equity guidelines 3: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: rating the certainty of synthesized evidence
Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? : : a systematic appraisal