Similar articles

• AHRQ series commentary 1: rating the evidence in comparative effectiveness reviews.

  Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann H, Guyatt G. Falck-Ytter Y, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):474-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.003. Epub 2010 Feb 26. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 20189352 No abstract available.
• AHRQ series commentary 3: the United States addresses comparative effectiveness but not cost-effectiveness through the effective health-care program.

  Freemantle N, Drummond MF. Freemantle N, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):479-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 20346862 No abstract available.
• AHRQ series editorial: public involvement improves methods development in comparative effectiveness reviews.

  Helfand M. Helfand M. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):471-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.018. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 20346860 No abstract available.
• AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program.

  Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, Ismaila AS, Santaguida P, Smith DH, Whitlock E, Wilt TJ, Moher D. Chou R, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):502-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.007. Epub 2008 Sep 26. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010. PMID: 18823754 Review.
• Finding evidence for comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.

  Relevo R, Balshem H. Relevo R, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Nov;64(11):1168-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.022. Epub 2011 Jun 17. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21684115 Review.