hkr.sePublikationer
Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
1 - 4 av 4
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Träffar per sida
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
Markera
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Sandy, J
    et al.
    England.
    Kilpatrick, N
    England.
    Persson, Martin
    England.
    Bessel, A
    England.
    Waylen, A
    England.
    Ness, A
    England.
    Ireland, A
    England.
    Why are multi-centre clinical observational studies still so difficult to run?2011Ingår i: British Dental Journal, ISSN 0007-0610, E-ISSN 1476-5373, Vol. 211, nr 2, s. 59-61Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Despite the introduction of IRAS, obtaining R&D approvals for multicentre studies is a major rate limiting step. Our experience with cleft research demonstrates that this approvals process must be drastically and rapidly improved if we wish to continue attract clinical research to the UK.

  • 2.
    Sandy, J
    et al.
    England.
    Rumsey, N
    England.
    Persson, Martin
    England.
    Waylen, A
    England.
    Kilpatrick, N
    England.
    Ireland, T
    England.
    Ness, A
    England.
    Using service rationalisation to build a research network: lessons from the centralisation of UK services for children with cleft lip and palate2012Ingår i: British Dental Journal, ISSN 0007-0610, E-ISSN 1476-5373, Vol. 212, nr 11, s. 553-5Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    In the UK around a thousand children are born annually with a cleft lip and/or palate that requires treatment. In the last decade services have been centralised in the UK reducing the 57 centres operating on these children in 1998, down to 11 centres or managed clinical networks in 2011. While the rationale for centralisation was to improve the standard of care (and in so doing the outcome) for children born with cleft lip and/or palate, research was central to this process. We illustrate how research informed and shaped this service rationalisation and how it facilitated the emergence of a research culture within the newly configured teams. We also describe how these changes in service provision were linked to the development of a national research strategy and to the identification of the resources necessary to support this strategy.

  • 3. Sjögren, P.
    et al.
    Halling, Arne
    Högskolan Kristianstad, Institutionen för hälsovetenskaper.
    Medline search validity for randomised controlled trials in different areas of dental research2002Ingår i: British Dental Journal, ISSN 0007-0610, E-ISSN 1476-5373, Vol. 192, nr 2, s. 97-99Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of Medline searches for randomised controlled trials in dental research (RCT-Ds), using the medical subject headings (MeSH-terms). DESIGN: The Medline database was searched for randomised controlled trials in dental research (RCT-Ds) published in 1999 and with MeSH-terms corresponding to different areas of dental research. All RCT-Ds were manually examined for relevance to the different areas of dental research and cross-tabulated against the Medline search results. The sensitivity, specificity, positive (precision) and negative predictive values, as well as the accuracy of the search results were calculated. RESULTS: The highest validity in the Medline searches for RCT-Ds was seen for endodontics, followed by orthodontics, whereas the lowest validity was seen for pediatric dentistry and public health dentistry. For pediatric dentistry the MeSH-term searches had too low a sensitivity for adequate location of RCT-Ds. CONCLUSIONS: MeSH-term searches on Medline are a useful tool for rapid location of RCT-Ds in most areas of dental research. However, there is a vast variation in the search validity. More refined search strategies are required to locate RCT-Ds in areas of dental research with low search validity.

  • 4. Sjögren, P.
    et al.
    Halling, Arne
    Högskolan Kristianstad, Institutionen för hälsovetenskaper.
    Quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental and medical research2002Ingår i: British Dental Journal, ISSN 0007-0610, E-ISSN 1476-5373, Vol. 192, nr 2, s. 100-103Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    OBJECTIVE: To assess 1) the quality of reporting randomised clinical trials in dental (RCT-Ds) and medical research (RCT-Ms), 2) the quality of RCT reports in relation to the journal impact factor, 3) the source of funding, and 4) the quality of RCT-Ds in different areas of dental research. DESIGN RANDOM: samples of 100 RCT-Ds and 100 RCT-Ms published in 1999 were evaluated for quality of reporting under blinded conditions with the Jadad quality assessment scale. In addition, correlation between the quality scores and journal impact factor or source of funding, as well as area of dental research were analysed. RESULTS: The quality of RCT-Ds and RCT-Ms published in 1999 was generally inadequate. The quality was largely equivalent in RCT-Ds and RCT-Ms. There was no correlation between the quality scores and the journal impact factor or the source of funding. Some differences were found in the quality scores between different areas of dental research. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these RCT-Ds and RCT-Ms show that most of them were imperfect in the reporting of methodology and trial conduct. There is a clear need to improve the quality of trial reporting in dental and medical research.

1 - 4 av 4
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf