Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
M Vassar reports receipt of funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the US Office of Research Integrity, Oklahoma Center for Advancement of Science and Technology, and internal grants from Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences – all outside of the present work. All other authors have nothing to report.
: To assess the quality of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) regarding minimally invasive hysterectomies (MIHs). : We performed a cross sectional analysis on SRs addressing MIHs to assess completeness of harms reporting. Hysterectomies are common gynecological procedures and are associated with complications. Such adverse events can directly affect physician decision making and patient outcomes.
ABSTRACT Objectives Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can significantly affect quality of life (QoL). These QoL outcomes are often patient-reported, and their inclusion in clinical trials supplements efficacy outcomes to provide the patients’ perspective. This assese existing literature for completeness of PRO reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PUD.
Abstract Context: Considering the substantial increase in research funding in the field of urology, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. Systematic reviews (SRs) compile available evidence regarding a clinical question into a single critical resource. If properly utilized, SRs can help minimize redundant studies, focus attention to unsubstantiated treatments, and reduce research waste.
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
