SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I, et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1995;333: 13017.
  • 2
    Schmid CH, Lau J, McIntosh MW, Cappelleri JC. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17: 192342.
  • 3
    Laupacis A, Sackett DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;318: 172833.
  • 4
    Cook RJ, Sackett DL. The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ. 1995;310: 4524.
  • 5
    Brett AS. Treating hypercholesterolemia. How should practicing physicians interpret the published data for patients? N Engl J Med. 1989;321: 67684.
  • 6
    Forrow L, Taylor WC, Arnold RM. Absolutely relative: how research results are summarized can affect treatment decisions. Am J Med. 1992;92: 1214.
  • 7
    Naylor CD, Chen E, Strauss B. Measured enthusiasm: does the method of reporting trial results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness? Ann Intern Med. 1992;117: 91621.
  • 8
    Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberg JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8: 5438.
  • 9
    Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ. 1994; 309: 7614.
  • 10
    Bobbio M, Demichellis B, Giustetto G. Completeness of reporting trial results: effect on physicians' willingness to prescribe. Lancet. 1994;343: 120911.
  • 11
    Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making. 1995;15: 1527.
  • 12
    Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ. 1995;311: 105661.
  • 13
    Henry D, Robertson J, Gillespie W, et al. Report to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Meta-analysis of Interventions for Prevention and Treatment of Post-menopausal Osteoporosis and Fracture. Newcastle, N.S.W.: The University of Newcastle; 1995.
  • 14
    Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Estrogen replacement therapy and coronary heart disease: a quantitative assessment of the epidemiologic evidence. Prev Med. 1991;20: 4763.
  • 15
    Steinberg KK, Thacker SB, Smith SJ, et al. A meta-analysis of the effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265: 198590.
  • 16
    Sillero-Arenas M, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Rodigues-Canteras R, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Galvez-Vaugas R. Menopausal hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79: 28694.
  • 17
    Dupont WD, Page DL. Menopausal estrogen therapy and breast cancer. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151: 6772.
  • 18
    Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981.
  • 19
    Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 women without breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350: 104759.
  • 20
    Hulley S, Grady D, Bush T, et al. Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. JAMA. 1998;280: 60513.
  • 21
    McGettigan P, Sly K, O'Connell D, et al. The Effects of Information Framing on the Practices of Physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14: 63342.