Bewertung des Biasrisikos (Risiko systematischer Fehler) in klinischen Studien : ein Manual für die Leitlinienerstellung

to connected objects

Location: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Frankfurt am Main

Extent: Online-Ressource

Language: Deutsch

Keyword: Bias
Klinisches Experiment
Iatrogene Krankheit
Therapie
Compliance

Event: Veröffentlichung

(where): Freiburg

(who): Universität

(when): 2016

Creator: Schmucker, Christine
Nothacker, Monika Judith
Rücker, Gerta
Muche-Borowski, Cathleen
Kopp, Ina
Meerpohl, Jörg J.

DOI: 10.6094/UNIFR/10926

URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-109261

Rights: Der Zugriff auf das Objekt ist unbeschränkt möglich.

Last update: 25.03.2025, 1:43 PM CET

Data provider

This object is provided by:
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.

Show original at data provider

Associated

Time of origin

2016

Other Objects (12)

Hochschulschrift

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

Hochschulschrift

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

Hochschulschrift

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

Cultural heritage institutions wishing to register will find more information here.

Fields marked * need to be filled in.

Username*

Please enter your username

Email*

Please enter your email address

Please do not fill this field

First name

Last name

Password*

Please enter your password

Confirm password*

Please enter the same password

I have read the terms of use and the privacy policy for the collection of personal data and accept them. *

This field is required.

I would like to subscribe to the newsletter of the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek. See newsletter subscription info.

Account created

Your "My DDB" account has been successfully created. Before you can log in to your account, you must click the confirmation link in the message we just sent to the email address you provided.

Bewertung des Biasrisikos (Risiko systematischer Fehler) in klinischen Studien : ein Manual für die Leitlinienerstellung

Object Details

Classification and Topics

Contributors, Places and Time

Further information

Data provider

Associated

Time of origin

Other Objects (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

Good or best practice statements: proposal for the operationalisation and implementation of GRADE guidance

Related objects

Reset password