Published in BMJ on January 17, 2004
Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Qual Saf Health Care (2005) 8.53
The other face of research governance. BMJ (2004) 4.05
Ethical issues in human genomics research in developing countries. BMC Med Ethics (2011) 2.02
Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments. J R Soc Med (2005) 1.69
Non-commercial clinical trials of a medicinal product: can they survive the current process of research approvals in the UK? J Med Ethics (2006) 1.30
Tackling treatment uncertainties together: the evolution of the James Lind Initiative, 2003-2013. J R Soc Med (2013) 1.25
Research protocols: waiving confidentiality for the greater good. BMJ (2006) 1.24
The reform of UK research ethics committees: throwing the baby out with the bath water? J Med Ethics (2005) 1.01
Ethics review in research: research governance also delays research. BMJ (2004) 0.98
Variation in recruitment across sites in a consent-based clinical data registry: lessons from the Canadian Stroke Network. BMC Med Ethics (2006) 0.97
Research ethics committees: agents of research policy? Health Res Policy Syst (2005) 0.94
Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research? BMC Public Health (2008) 0.93
Ethics review in research: ethics committees are risk averse. BMJ (2004) 0.79
Sense and readability: participant information sheets for research studies. Br J Psychiatry (2015) 0.78
Research ethics committees in the regulation of clinical research: comparison of Finland to England, Canada, and the United States. Health Res Policy Syst (2016) 0.77
Ethics review in research: time has come for reassessment. BMJ (2004) 0.75
Ethics review in research: role of ethics committee review is interpreted widely. BMJ (2004) 0.75
Efficiency and the proposed reforms to the NHS research ethics system. J Med Ethics (2007) 0.75
Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process. BMJ (2000) 6.14
Local research ethics committees. BMA's advice about approval of clinical audit studies is confusing. BMJ (1997) 4.60
Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. QJM (2003) 4.53
The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. BMJ (2000) 4.13
Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. BMJ (2004) 3.54
What are the effects of the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki? BMJ (2001) 3.17
Ethical review of a multicentre study in Scotland: a weighty problem. J R Coll Physicians Lond (2000) 2.77
Ethics of n-of-1 trials. Lancet (1995) 1.90
Recruitment failure in early neonatal research. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed (2004) 1.31
Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders. J Med Ethics (2001) 1.18
Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med (2008) 38.76
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet (2009) 12.28
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 11.77
Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol (2008) 7.45
When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ (2007) 6.77
Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA (2010) 5.90
Antibiotics for acute otitis media: a meta-analysis with individual patient data. Lancet (2006) 5.83
Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med (2010) 5.80
No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet (2009) 5.57
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ (2008) 5.16
Effect of consent rituals on mortality in emergency care research. Lancet (2011) 4.74
Cardiac impairment or heart failure? BMJ (2005) 4.67
Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. BMC Med Educ (2005) 4.47
How well does B-type natriuretic peptide predict death and cardiac events in patients with heart failure: systematic review. BMJ (2005) 4.31
Too much medicine; too little care. BMJ (2013) 3.90
Assessing the quality of research. BMJ (2004) 3.90
An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci (2009) 3.77
Why the GMC should set up a central registry of doctors' competing interests. BMJ (2014) 3.69
GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 3.60
All trials must be registered and the results published. BMJ (2013) 3.46
GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.30
Taking healthcare interventions from trial to practice. BMJ (2010) 3.27
Corticosteroids for pain relief in sore throat: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (2009) 3.13
Evaluation and stages of surgical innovations. Lancet (2009) 3.04
GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol (2011) 3.02
Well informed uncertainties about the effects of treatments. BMJ (2004) 2.96
Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting. Lancet (2010) 2.96
Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet (2009) 2.86
Follow-up of blood-pressure lowering and glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med (2014) 2.64
The paths from research to improved health outcomes. ACP J Club (2005) 2.61
Anticoagulation control and prediction of adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes (2008) 2.61
Magnesium for preventing and treating eclampsia: time for international action. Lancet (2002) 2.58
How to formulate research recommendations. BMJ (2006) 2.38
A surrealistic mega-analysis of redisorganization theories. J R Soc Med (2005) 2.38
Hypertension guideline recommendations in general practice: awareness, agreement, adoption, and adherence. Br J Gen Pract (2007) 2.37
Whispered voice test for screening for hearing impairment in adults and children: systematic review. BMJ (2003) 2.36
General practitioners' self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ (2002) 2.36
Teaching evidence based medicine. BMJ (2004) 2.36
Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ (2002) 2.36
Comparative accuracy: assessing new tests against existing diagnostic pathways. BMJ (2006) 2.30
The automation of systematic reviews. BMJ (2013) 2.20
Early stopping of randomized clinical trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J Clin Epidemiol (2008) 2.18
Adding fluoride to water supplies. BMJ (2007) 2.12
How quickly should we titrate antihypertensive medication? Systematic review modelling blood pressure response from trial data. Heart (2011) 2.06
A child with earache. Are antibiotics the best treatment? Aust Fam Physician (2002) 2.03
Is the problem that everything is a diagnosis? Aust Fam Physician (2013) 1.96
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. J R Soc Med (2007) 1.95
Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals. JAMA (2002) 1.95
GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2012) 1.90
Combined effects of routine blood pressure lowering and intensive glucose control on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: New results from the ADVANCE trial. Diabetes Care (2009) 1.89
Patients and the public deserve big changes in evaluation of drugs. BMJ (2009) 1.88
The landscape and lexicon of blinding in randomized trials. Ann Intern Med (2002) 1.86
Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev (2014) 1.84
The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Technol Assess Health Care (2009) 1.84
Using N-of-1 trials to improve patient management and save costs. J Gen Intern Med (2010) 1.80
Are any of the criticisms of the CNEP trial true? Lancet (2006) 1.77
The state of primary-care research. Lancet (2004) 1.76
Commentary: The evolution of methods to assess the effects of treatments, illustrated by the development of treatments for diphtheria, 1825-1918. Int J Epidemiol (2011) 1.76
GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol (2012) 1.75
Minimal interventions to decrease long-term use of benzodiazepines in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract (2011) 1.71
Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet (2003) 1.69
Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol (2009) 1.68
Misunderstandings, misperceptions, and mistakes. ACP J Club (2007) 1.63
What should clinicians do when faced with conflicting recommendations? BMJ (2008) 1.62
A systematic review and meta-analysis: probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. BMC Gastroenterol (2009) 1.60
The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med (2006) 1.60
Why won't defenders of the Cartwright Inquiry provide evidence to justify their use of the term 'conventional treatment' for carcinoma in situ? N Z Med J (2010) 1.59
Acute infective conjunctivitis in primary care: who needs antibiotics? An individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract (2011) 1.59
Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO. J R Soc Med (2011) 1.53
Point-of-care testing for Hb A1c in the management of diabetes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Chem (2011) 1.53
Evidence based medicine and the medical curriculum. BMJ (2008) 1.52
Misunderstandings, misperceptions, and mistakes. Evid Based Med (2007) 1.51
Publishing information about ongoing clinical trials for patients. BMJ (2010) 1.50
Blood pressure self monitoring: questions and answers from a national conference. BMJ (2008) 1.49
Effects of pravastatin on coronary events in 2073 patients with low levels of both low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: results from the LIPID study. Eur Heart J (2004) 1.46
New GMC guidance takes a major, ethically flawed, backward step. BMJ (2013) 1.43
Government regulation is needed to prevent biased under-reporting of clinical trials. BMJ (2004) 1.43
The James Lind Initiative. J R Soc Med (2003) 1.43
Medical research: Trial unpredictability yields predictable therapy gains. Nature (2013) 1.41
Evidence-based medicine teaching in UK medical schools. Med Teach (2009) 1.39
Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open (2012) 1.39
PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med (2013) 1.36
Effects of visit-to-visit variability in systolic blood pressure on macrovascular and microvascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the ADVANCE trial. Circulation (2013) 1.32
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obstet Gynecol (2009) 1.32
New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2012) 1.28
Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev (2015) 1.28
The rise of cholesterol testing: how much is unnecessary. Br J Gen Pract (2011) 1.27
Blood pressure variables and cardiovascular risk: new findings from ADVANCE. Hypertension (2009) 1.22
Patterns of 'leakage' in the utilisation of clinical guidelines: a systematic review. Postgrad Med J (2011) 1.21
The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties. BMJ (2012) 1.15
The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's 'guidelines for causation' contribute? J R Soc Med (2009) 1.14
Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane reviews. BMJ (2003) 1.14