On bias and transparency in the development of influential recommendations
- PMID: 16446476
- PMCID: PMC1373717
- DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051622
On bias and transparency in the development of influential recommendations
Comment in
-
Evidence and advocacy: are all things considered?CMAJ. 2006 Jun 20;174(13):1856. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060231. CMAJ. 2006. PMID: 16785461 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Canadian Diabetes Association 2003 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2003:27(Suppl 2):S1-152. Available: www.diabetes.ca/cpg2003 (accessed 2005 Dec 12). - PubMed
-
- Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). CEDAC final recommendation on reconsideration and reasons for recommendation — insulin glargine. Available: www.ccohta.ca/CDR/cdr_pdf/cdr_submissions/Complete/cdr_complete_Lantus_2... (accessed 2005 Dec 11).
-
- CCOHTA. Conflict of interest guidelines for the Common Drug Review. Available: www.ccohta.ca/CDR/cdr_pdf/CDR_Conflict_Interest_Guidelines.pdf (accessed 2005 Dec 21).
-
- Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan A, et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72. - PubMed
-
- Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published studies. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources