Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/10797177
Switch to
Predicate | Object |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
lifeskim:mentions | |
pubmed:issue |
5
|
pubmed:dateCreated |
2000-5-31
|
pubmed:abstractText |
Controversy regarding the risks and benefits of thrombolysis has not been helped by the perception that some trials were "positive" and others "negative" on their primary outcome measure of either "good" or "poor" functional outcome. We wondered whether the definition of good or poor functional outcome might have contributed to this perception, and what effect altering the definition might have on the individual trials and on the systematic review of all the trials combined.
|
pubmed:language |
eng
|
pubmed:journal | |
pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
pubmed:chemical | |
pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
pubmed:month |
May
|
pubmed:issn |
0039-2499
|
pubmed:author | |
pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
pubmed:volume |
31
|
pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
pubmed:pagination |
1133-5
|
pubmed:dateRevised |
2007-11-15
|
pubmed:meshHeading | |
pubmed:year |
2000
|
pubmed:articleTitle |
Trials of thrombolysis in acute ischemic stroke: does the choice of primary outcome measure really matter?
|
pubmed:affiliation |
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, The University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road, Edinburgh, UK. jmw@skull.dcn.ed.ac.uk
|
pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article,
Meta-Analysis
|