Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Publications

Ethics of posthumous scholarly authorship in the sciences

Nunan D. and Aronson JK., (2024), BMJ

The CONSIDER Intervention Fidelity Framework for Complex Interventions in Healthcare: A “Best-Fit” Framework Synthesis

Páez A. et al, (2024)

What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates?

Djulbegovic B. et al, (2024), Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Ten resources for understanding bias in health research: EBM live workshop 2022

Nunan D. et al, (2023), BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 28, 337 - 340

Catalogue of bias: racial bias

Naicker R. and Nunan D., (2023), BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 29, 114 - 116

Very high risk of bias

Pires dos Santos AP. et al, (2023), British Dental Journal, 234

Insights into the quantification and reporting of model-related uncertainty across different disciplines

Simmonds EG. et al, (2022), iScience, 25

'Delicate diagnosis': avoiding harms in difficult, disputed, and desired diagnoses

McCartney M. et al, (2022), British Journal of General Practice, 72, 580 - 581

Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study: Open science policies of medical journals.

Gardener AD. et al, (2022), JRSM Open, 13

Appraising qualitative health research—towards a differentiated approach

Williams V. et al, (2022), BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 27, 212 - 214

Physical activity for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

Nunan D. et al, (2022), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2022

High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low-quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high-quality evidence

Djulbegovic B. et al, (2022), Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 28, 353 - 362

Incidence of Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Death in Young Athletes and Military Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lear A. et al, (2022), Journal of Athletic Training, 57, 431 - 443

Screening Electrocardiogram in Young Athletes and Military Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lear A. et al, (2022), Journal of Athletic Training, 57, 444 - 451

Adherence in leading medical journals to the CONSORT 2010 statement for reporting of binary outcomes in randomised controlled trials: cross-sectional analysis

Nunan D. et al, (2022), BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 27, 120 - 124

Adherence to conflicts of interest policy in Cochrane reviews where authors are also editorial board members: A cross-sectional analysis

Pacheco RL. et al, (2022), Research Synthesis Methods, 13, 6 - 11

Advocating for evidence-informed decisions to make healthcare fit for each person

Franco JVA. et al, (2022), BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 27, 65 - 66

Changing patterns in reporting and sharing of review data in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of interventions: Cross sectional meta-research study

Nguyen PY. et al, (2022), BMJ

Open science policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a repeat cross-sectional study

Gardener A. et al, (2022)

Reporting of medication adherence in randomized controlled trials of pharmacological interventions for SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional analysis

Lee CK. et al, (2022)

Load More

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
»