Further Reading

• Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier J, Altman D, Tunis S, Haynes B, Oxman A, Moher D. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. British Medical Journal 2008; 337: 1223
• Ioannidis J.P.A., Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine (www.plosmedicine.org) 2005; 2: 0696
• Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA and Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: Wiley, 2000.
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
• Fritsche L, Einecke G, Fleina F, et al. Reports of large immunosuppression trials in kidney transplantation: Room for improvement. Am J Transplant 2004; 4: 738.
• Fleiner F, Fritsche L, Glander P, Neumayer HH, Budde K. Reporting of rejection after renal transplantation in large immunosuppressive trials: Biopsy-proven, clinical, presumed, or treated rejection? Transplantation 2006; 81 (5): 655.
• Jadad AR, Moore A, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled Clinical Trials 1996; 17 (1): 1.
• Kahn KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes G. Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine. How to review and apply findings of healthcare research. London: The Royal Society of Medicine Press Limited, 2003.
• Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D, Lepage L. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 2001; 285 (15): 1987.
• Cochrane Library (See links)
• Latest Consort Statement (See links)
• QUORUM Statement (See links)