Published in Ugeskr Laeger on January 07, 2013
[Screening for obsessive thoughts, depression and ADDH? Reply]. Ugeskr Laeger (2013) 0.75
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ (2011) 29.14
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ (2010) 28.70
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA (2004) 23.87
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ (2009) 22.18
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2009) 21.74
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet (2007) 20.57
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ (2007) 14.52
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol (2008) 14.36
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2009) 12.16
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 11.80
Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med (2004) 11.47
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med (2007) 10.43
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ (2013) 9.01
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med (2007) 8.77
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med (2007) 8.46
Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ (2009) 8.31
SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med (2013) 8.21
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med (2007) 7.87
CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol (2010) 7.04
General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2012) 6.15
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology (2007) 5.77
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Bull World Health Organ (2007) 5.38
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology (2007) 5.12
The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med (2015) 4.49
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ (2006) 4.42
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Prev Med (2007) 4.29
Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ (2011) 3.96
Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ (2006) 3.71
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg (2011) 3.57
Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. BMJ (2010) 3.46
Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2010) 3.45
Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol (2008) 3.11
Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ (2004) 3.07
General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (2012) 3.03
Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ (2010) 2.99
Powerful spin in the conclusion of Wampold et al.'s re-analysis of placebo versus no-treatment trials despite similar results as in original review. J Clin Psychol (2007) 2.92
Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study. BMJ (2005) 2.80
Does long term use of psychiatric drugs cause more harm than good? BMJ (2015) 2.76
Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA (2002) 2.58
Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ (2008) 2.56
Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol (2011) 2.45
Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study. PLoS Med (2010) 2.24
What is the difference between dependence and withdrawal reactions? A comparison of benzodiazepines and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. Addiction (2012) 2.22
Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry? BMJ (2014) 2.13
The journal impact factor as a predictor of trial quality and outcomes: cohort study of hepatobiliary randomized clinical trials. Am J Gastroenterol (2005) 2.12
[Should the announcement of scientific dishonesty be revised yet again?]. Ugeskr Laeger (2013) 2.01
Our prescription drugs kill us in large numbers. Pol Arch Med Wewn (2014) 2.00
[New cancer drugs are no better than old]. Ugeskr Laeger (2013) 1.95
[Overinterpretation of a non-conclusive population study on breast cancer]. Ugeskr Laeger (2004) 1.94
[Are invitations to mammography screening a reasonable basis for informed consent?-- Secondary publication]. Ugeskr Laeger (2006) 1.92
[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. Gac Sanit (2008) 1.87
Constraints on publication rights in industry-initiated clinical trials. JAMA (2006) 1.82
Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality? Radiology (2011) 1.76
General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. JAMA (2013) 1.70
Universal health checks should be abandoned. BMJ (2013) 1.67
Registries and registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med (2005) 1.48
Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol (2009) 1.46
Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study. BMC Med (2007) 1.43
Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening. Evid Based Med (2013) 1.42
Overstating the evidence for lung cancer screening: the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (I-ELCAP) study. Arch Intern Med (2007) 1.40
Lessons from and cautions about noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. JAMA (2006) 1.40
[Transparency, reliability and conflict of interest]. Ugeskr Laeger (2011) 1.39
[Dubious documentation of the effect of acupuncture]. Ugeskr Laeger (2006) 1.39
What do we know about the safety of the HPV vaccines? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen (2017) 1.39
[Information about breast cancer screening presented on websites is biased and insufficient--a secondary publication]. Ugeskr Laeger (2005) 1.38
PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med (2013) 1.36
Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in Denmark. A comparative study. BMC Womens Health (2009) 1.35
[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. Rev Esp Salud Publica (2008) 1.35
Access to data in industry-sponsored trials. Lancet (2011) 1.28
Biases in estimates of overdetection due to mammography screening. Lancet Oncol (2008) 1.24
Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Med Res Methodol (2008) 1.24
Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory. J Clin Epidemiol (2009) 1.21
Underreporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines: cross sectional study. BMC Med Ethics (2013) 1.19
The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening. Pol Arch Med Wewn (2010) 1.17
Flawed inferences about screening mammography's benefit based on observational data. J Clin Oncol (2008) 1.17
Antibody response to Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients: a marker of therapeutic success?--A 30-year cohort study of survival in Danish CF patients after onset of chronic P. aeruginosa lung infection. Pediatr Pulmonol (2004) 1.13
Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study. BMJ (2013) 1.07
[In Process Citation]. Ugeskr Laeger (2015) 1.07
[Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration]. Gac Sanit (2009) 1.05
Influence of mammography screening on use of mastectomies in Denmark. Acta Oncol (2014) 1.05
Sponsors' participation in conduct and reporting of industry trials: a descriptive study. Trials (2012) 1.04
Effect of screening mammography on breast cancer incidence. N Engl J Med (2013) 1.04
Who evaluates public health programmes? A review of the NHS Breast Screening Programme. J R Soc Med (2010) 1.02
Challenges in coding adverse events in clinical trials: a systematic review. PLoS One (2012) 0.98
Physical activity for secondary prevention of disease. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials. Dan Med Bull (2005) 0.96
Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med (2003) 0.96
Fall in breast cancer deaths. A cause for celebration, and caution. BMJ (2009) 0.95
Screening and breast cancer. N Engl J Med (2006) 0.95
Polyclonal immunoglobulin for treatment of bacterial sepsis: a systematic review. Clin Infect Dis (2004) 0.94
Thirteen years of breast screening had no measurable effect on breast cancer mortality in Norway. Int J Cancer (2012) 0.94
Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study. BMJ (2009) 0.93
Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol (2011) 0.92
Lead-time models should not be used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med (2014) 0.92
The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. Lancet (2013) 0.91
Multiplicity of data in trial reports and the reliability of meta-analyses: empirical study. BMJ (2011) 0.90
The background review for the USPSTF recommendation on screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med (2010) 0.89
Reduction in mortality from breast cancer: presentation of benefits and harms needs to be balanced. BMJ (2005) 0.89
Effect of mammography screening on surgical treatment for breast cancer in Norway: comparative analysis of cancer registry data. BMJ (2011) 0.88
Unsubstantiated claims of large effects of placebo on pain: serious errors in meta-analysis of placebo analgesia mechanism studies. J Clin Epidemiol (2006) 0.88