In this blog, Julie Duncan Millar, PhD Student and Physiotherapist, reflects on the difficulties of comparing and sharing upper limb rehabilitation trial data and proposes a condensed toolkit of measures recommended for researchers to use in future trials.
Saul Crandon provides an overview of Case-control and Cohort studies: what are they, how are they different, and what are the pros and cons you need to consider in each study design.
In this blog, Leonardo provides 5 interpretations that you should consider when you read or hear about a reported association in observational studies.
This blog provides a detailed overview of the Delphi Technique, a method of congregating expert opinion through a series of iterative questionnaires, with a goal of coming to a group consensus. It covers what it is, the process involved, pros and cons and when you would consider using it.
This blog provides a basic overview of: 1) what a meta-analysis is; 2) why they’re considered the ‘gold standard’ of evidence; and 3) how a meta-analysis is carried out.
This blog explains what allocation concealment is & why it’s important, in terms of preventing researchers from (intentionally or otherwise) influencing which participants are assigned to a given intervention group.
Confused about Hazard Ratios and their confidence intervals? This blog provides a handy tutorial.
Outcome switching is a major problem in clinical trial reporting that distorts the evidence doctors and patients use to make real-world clinical decisions. Numerous prevalence studies have already shown this to be an extremely common problem, even in top medical journals. However the CEBM Outcome Monitoring Project (COMPare) has taken a new approach: writing to journals to correct the record on individual trials, in the hope that individual accountability and open data sharing will help solve this important problem. Our main question was: how will the journals respond? This blog tells the story of COMPare so far.
Reviews tend to provide summaries of the literature on a topic. However, there are differences between them in terms of the stages and applicability of findings. This post will highlight such differences between traditional reviews and systematic reviews.
Patients, carers and members of the public offer a unique perspective in health and social care research, adding to the expertise of the research team. Improving healthcare services will only be possible by involving the people accessing those services.
Advances in technology now allow huge amounts of data to be handled simultaneously. Katherine takes a look at how this can be used in healthcare and how it can be exploited.
Heidi reviews ‘Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide’ written by Paul Glasziou, Les Irwig, Chris Bain and Graham Colditz
Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are central to evidence-based healthcare; but they themselves are riddled with inefficiency. Trial Forge aims to change that.
Sense About Science explains how scientists cope with uncertainty and unknowns in research, whether or not that matters, and how we can practically use scientific results in spite of not always knowing everything.