Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

1

Annualized was found better than absolute risk reduction in the calculation of number needed to treat in chronic conditions

Tracy J. Mayne, Edward Whalen, An Vu

Journal:

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 175 KB

english, 2006

2

Nondifferential disease misclassification may bias incidence risk ratios away from the null

Juha Pekkanen, Jordi Sunyer, Susan Chinn

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 4.96 MB

english, 2006

3

Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies

M.M.G. Leeflang, R.J.P.M. Scholten, A.W.S. Rutjes, J.B. Reitsma, P.M.M. Bossuyt

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 176 KB

english, 2006

4

Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery

Martin Nuttall, Jan van der Meulen, Mark Emberton

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 149 KB

english, 2006

5

Delayed diagnosis of females with respiratory presentation of cystic fibrosis did not segregate with poorer clinical outcome

Jonathan McCormick, Erika J. Sims, Anil Mehta

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 199 KB

english, 2006

6

An unadjusted NNT was a moderately good predictor of health benefit

Christopher A.K.Y. Chong, George Tomlinson, Lisa Chodirker, Nassi Figdor, Mark Uster, Gary Naglie, Murray D. Krahn

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 221 KB

english, 2006

7

Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function

Dennis L. Hart, Karon F. Cook, Jerome E. Mioduski, Cayla R. Teal, Paul K. Crane

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 153 KB

english, 2006

8

Specific comorbidity risk adjustment was a better predictor of 5-year acute myocardial infarction mortality than general methods

Gilat L. Grunau, Sam Sheps, Elliot M. Goldner, Pamela A. Ratner

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 116 KB

english, 2006

9

Simulation of the Syst-Eur randomized control trial using a primary care electronic medical record was feasible

Richard L. Tannen, Mark G. Weiner, Sue M. Marcus

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 266 KB

english, 2006

10

A survey identified publication bias in the secondary literature

Anne O. Carter, Glenn H. Griffin, Thomas P. Carter

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 93 KB

english, 2006

11

A new method for assessing drug causation provided agreement with experts' judgment

Yannick Arimone, Bernard Bégaud, Ghada Miremont-Salamé, Annie Fourrier-Réglat, Mathieu Molimard, Nicholas Moore, Françoise Haramburu

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 150 KB

english, 2006

12

New methods give better estimates of changes in diagnostic accuracy when prior information is provided

Les Irwig, Petra Macaskill, Stephen D. Walter, Nehmat Houssami

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 222 KB

english, 2006

13

Survival estimates of a prognostic classification depended more on year of treatment than on imputation of missing values

Merel R. van Dijk, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Sally P. Stenning, J. Dik F. Habbema

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 205 KB

english, 2006

14

Re: In response to the correspondence arising from Twisk and Proper: evaluation of the results of a randomized controlled trial: how to define changes between baseline and follow-up

Siew F. Chan, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig, Stephen D. Walter

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 47 KB

english, 2006

15

Reaction to: “Re: In response to the correspondence arising from Twisk and Proper: evaluation of the results of a randomized controlled trial: how to define changes between baseline and follow-up,” by Siew F. Chan and others

Hendriek C. Boshuizen

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 52 KB

english, 2006

16

Editorial Board

Journal:

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Year:

2006

Language:

english

File:

PDF, 29 KB

english, 2006

17

Volume 59; Issue 3

Annualized was found better than absolute risk reduction in the calculation of number needed to treat in chronic conditions

Nondifferential disease misclassification may bias incidence risk ratios away from the null

Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies

Charlson scores based on ICD-10 administrative data were valid in assessing comorbidity in patients undergoing urological cancer surgery

Delayed diagnosis of females with respiratory presentation of cystic fibrosis did not segregate with poorer clinical outcome

An unadjusted NNT was a moderately good predictor of health benefit

Simulated computerized adaptive test for patients with shoulder impairments was efficient and produced valid measures of function

Specific comorbidity risk adjustment was a better predictor of 5-year acute myocardial infarction mortality than general methods

Simulation of the Syst-Eur randomized control trial using a primary care electronic medical record was feasible

A survey identified publication bias in the secondary literature

A new method for assessing drug causation provided agreement with experts' judgment

New methods give better estimates of changes in diagnostic accuracy when prior information is provided

Survival estimates of a prognostic classification depended more on year of treatment than on imputation of missing values

Re: In response to the correspondence arising from Twisk and Proper: evaluation of the results of a randomized controlled trial: how to define changes between baseline and follow-up

Reaction to: “Re: In response to the correspondence arising from Twisk and Proper: evaluation of the results of a randomized controlled trial: how to define changes between baseline and follow-up,” by Siew F. Chan and others

Editorial Board

Table of Contents