Clinical Efficacy of Phytodolor under special consideration of double-blind trials and their meta-analysis

Planta Medica ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 73 (09) ◽  
Author(s):  
KJ Gundermann
PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 84 (4) ◽  
pp. A108-A108
Author(s):  
Student

Choice of dose [in 196 double-blind trials of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis], multiple comparisons, wrong calculation, sub-group and within-group analyses, wrong sampling units. . . , change in measurement scales before analyses, baseline difference, and selecting reporting of significant results were some of the verified or possible causes for the large proportion of results that favored the [newly proposed] drug. Doubtful or invalid statements were found in 76% of the conclusions or abstracts. Bias consistently favored the new drug in 81 trials, and the control in only one trial. It is not obvious how a reliable meta-analysis could be done [reliably] in these trials.


1980 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiaki Tazaki ◽  
Teruo Omae ◽  
Shoshiro Kuromaru ◽  
Eiichi Ohtomo ◽  
Kazuo Hasegawa ◽  
...  

The results of a series of multicentre, controlled, double-blind trials of the clinical efficacy of Encephabol compared with placebo in patients with a variety of cerebrovascular disorders are reported.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document