The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis

[1]  L. Puljak,et al.  The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: A meta‐epidemiological study , 2018, European journal of pain.

[2]  G. Stotts,et al.  Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  J. Lawrenson,et al.  Antioxidant vitamin and mineral supplements for preventing age-related macular degeneration. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  S. Schnell,et al.  Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output. , 2017, JCI insight.

[5]  K. Dwan,et al.  The Use of Systematic Reviews When Designing and Reporting Surgical Trials. , 2017, Annals of surgery.

[6]  C. Ramsay,et al.  Consensus on Outcome Measures for Glaucoma Effectiveness Trials: Results From a Delphi and Nominal Group Technique Approaches , 2016, Journal of glaucoma.

[7]  A. Dick,et al.  Heterogeneity of primary outcome measures used in clinical trials of treatments for intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis , 2015, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases.

[8]  Iain Chalmers,et al.  How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set , 2014, The Lancet.

[9]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting , 2010, The Lancet.

[10]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. , 2009, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.