Inventaire - your friends and communities are your best library

Randomization Does Not Help Much, Comparability Does

published in: PLOS One

date of publication: 2015-07-20

language: English

Cites articles 19

Date

Title

Authors

2012-11-01

Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?
2012-05-22

Assessment and implication of prognostic imbalance in randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome--a simulation study

Gordon Guyatt, Lehana Thabane, Kristian Thorlund, Philip James Devereaux
2012-03-28

Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research
2012-03-01

Psychology research. Psychology's bold initiative.
2011-08-31

Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?
2008-05-01

A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003.

Peter Austin
2007-06-23

Why There's No Cause to Randomize
2005-07-13

Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research

John Ioannidis
2004-10-01

Ensuring the comparability of comparison groups: is randomization enough?
1999-06-01

The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs
1998-08-01

Minimisation: the platinum standard for trials?. Randomisation doesn't guarantee similarity of groups; minimisation does
1994-02-01

Fisher's game with the devil.

Stephen Senn
1990-11-01

Randomization, statistics, and causal inference
1988-09

Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design
1986-12

Statistics and Causal Inference
1980-03-01

Clinical judgment and statistics. Lessons from a simulated randomized trial in coronary artery disease
1976-10-01

Recent methodological contributions to clinical trials
1976-05

On Rereading R. A. Fisher
1908-03-01

The Probable Error of a Mean

William Sealy Gosset

Article - wd:Q35700445

Welcome to Inventaire

the library of your friends and communities

learn more