Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
E-pub ahead of print

Is clinical heterogeneity the foremost prominent threat to the validity of meta-analyses?

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Sphenopalatine ganglion block for the treatment of postdural puncture headache: a randomised, blinded, clinical trial

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Pharmacokinetics of an intravenous bolus dose of clonidine in children undergoing surgery

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Noninvasive respiratory support in the hypoxaemic peri-operative/periprocedural patient: a joint ESA/ESICM guideline

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Noninvasive respiratory support in the hypoxaemic peri-operative/periprocedural patient: A joint ESA/ESICM guideline

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  5. Reply to: will one hour less make any difference?

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftLetterpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

Systematic review methodology with meta-analyses have long been regarded as one of the highest forms of research methodology and a cornerstone in many clinical guidelines. A common criticism of this methodology is the handling of the clinical and/or statistical heterogeneity which arises when pooling heterogenous data from different trials, settings and interventions.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftActa Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
ISSN0001-5172
DOI
StatusE-pub ahead of print - 14 maj 2021

ID: 65654447