Critical Outcomes in Longitudinal Observational Studies and Registries in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: An OMERACT Special Interest Group Report
暂无分享,去创建一个
M. Suarez‐Almazor | N. Goel | V. Strand | L. Carmona | J. Curtis | L. Klokker | R. Christensen | L. Kristensen | M. Lopez‐Olivo | N. Zamora | M. Lopez-Olivo
[1] James M Robins,et al. Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available. , 2016, American journal of epidemiology.
[2] K. Michaud,et al. Methodological Challenges When Comparing Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of International Observational Registries , 2015, Arthritis care & research.
[3] Michelle B. Leavy,et al. A framework for creating standardized outcome measures for patient registries. , 2014, Journal of comparative effectiveness research.
[4] P. Tugwell,et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[5] L. Carmona,et al. Databases and registers: useful tools for research, no studies , 2014, Rheumatology International.
[6] W. Dixon,et al. Launch of a checklist for reporting longitudinal observational drug studies in rheumatology: a EULAR extension of STROBE guidelines based on experience from biologics registries , 2013, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.
[7] P. Tugwell,et al. Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions , 2013, Research synthesis methods.
[8] Jonathan J Deeks,et al. Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non‐randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions , 2013, Research synthesis methods.
[9] M. Dougados,et al. Relative importance of doctor-reported outcomes vs patient-reported outcomes in DMARD intensification for rheumatoid arthritis: the DUO study. , 2013, Rheumatology.
[10] M. Boers,et al. Examining the Similarities and Differences of OMERACT Core Sets Using the ICF: First Step Towards an Improved Domain Specification and Development of an Item Pool to Measure Functioning and Health , 2011, The Journal of Rheumatology.
[11] Gordon H Guyatt,et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[12] W. Dixon,et al. A comparison of patient characteristics and outcomes in selected European and U.S. rheumatoid arthritis registries. , 2010, Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism.
[13] W. Dixon,et al. EULAR points to consider when establishing, analysing and reporting safety data of biologics registers in rheumatology , 2010, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.
[14] Nancy A Dreyer,et al. Registries for robust evidence. , 2009, JAMA.
[15] A. Silman,et al. Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology. , 1999, The Journal of rheumatology.
[16] M. Dougados,et al. Preliminary core sets for endpoints in ankylosing spondylitis. Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.
[17] P. Tugwell,et al. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.
[18] P. Tugwell,et al. World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core endpoints for symptom modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. , 1994, The Journal of rheumatology. Supplement.