Exemplos de uso de Randomized controlled clinical trials em Inglês e suas traduções para o Português
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
-
Official/political
To come from randomized controlled clinical trials.
Meta-analysis was done taking aside the low methodological quality studies as classified by the tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled clinical trials.
Two randomized controlled clinical trials and three prospective before-and-after studies are described in Chart 1.
None of the studies took place in Brazil,highlighting the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials with prospect for prevention in the Brazilian population.
In instructions to authors, only 13% of journals mention the use of CONSORT Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials in data reporting on randomized controlled clinical trials.
Nevertheless, there are no randomized controlled clinical trials, and these results are based on reports with few cases.
The available evidences regarding the effectiveness of nucleoplasty are limited,and there are no randomized controlled clinical trials comparing it to other surgical modalities.
After these two reviews, two randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted, analyzing the influence of insoles on gait and balance in patients with stroke.
To assess the efficacy of health interventions, it is known that the"gold standard" is experimental research development,such as randomized controlled clinical trials.
Wong et al. have published a metaanalysis of all randomized controlled clinical trials describing patients diagnosed with RA receiving anti-TNF therapy.
This is important information for dermatologists, because it provides a real-life view of clinical practice,a goal that is hard to achieve with randomized controlled clinical trials.
We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment.
Regarding the methodological design, the articles were classified as:systematic review n=01, randomized controlled clinical trials n=03, clinical trials without randomization n=03.
Randomized controlled clinical trials involving placebo groups have shown that bronchodilator treatment and corticosteroid treatment are unable to reduce the speed of decrease in FEV1 over time.
The inclusion of articles of both good andbad quality in the systematic reviews may increase their heterogeneity the extent to which the results from"similar" randomized controlled clinical trials diverge from each other.
The performance of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials is indeed complex and of elevated cost, causing other types of experimental studies to be used to substantiate health practices.
Researchers of little ethical commitment or who lack capability, and even those in the pharmaceutical industry,may cause their randomized controlled clinical trials to reach the maximum scores possible by utilizing a wide variety of quality scales.
The inexistence of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials to evaluate the effectiveness of the personal FM system in the intervention of individuals with central auditory processing disorders limits the considerations of the present work.
Level I contains the evidence from a systematic review or meta-analysis of all controlled randomized clinical trials ororiginating in guidelines based on systematic reviews of randomized controlled clinical trials.
The 15 studies selected used qualitative methodology,namely two randomized controlled clinical trials, one cohort study, three correlational studies, eight descriptive studiesand one systematic literature review without meta-analysis.
The articles were categorized by level of scientific evidence grade of recommendation A, B, or C. In general,a grade A recommendation applies when the evidence is from randomized controlled clinical trials with a rich body of data.
A grade B recommendation applies when the evidence is from randomized controlled clinical trials with limited body of data, whereas a grade C recommendation applies when the evidence is from observational studies or nonrandomized clinical trials. .
For etiology/damage research in this scale, the degree of recommendations ranges from A do D, andlevels from 1A systematic review with homogeneous randomized controlled clinical trials to 5 consensuses, biological material and animal model.
Among the themes addressed in the randomized controlled clinical trials, a study worth highlighting is one that evaluated the efficacy of aural rehabilitation of individuals or groups, the quality of life of individuals with hearing loss, and their respective spouses.
This results in the need to promote studies with greater methodological rigor, such as studies with evidence levels I and II,i.e. meta-analysis and randomized controlled clinical trials, which are able to present recommendations for use in the clinical practice.
The reported experience in this study may stimulate the practice of randomized controlled clinical trials, combining them to a qualitative approach to evaluate interventions in the care context when the use of only one of them is not sufficient for the studied phenomenon.
When weighting the studies' relevance in an evidence quality classification perspective, great difficulty was met to qualify studies that do not usea model mainly developed for a specific research design, that is, randomized controlled clinical trials, as the best research.
Given the importance of the subject, the aim of the present study was to identify andsynthesize evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials that tested the effectiveness of TCA in relation to SA for the treatment of hot flashes in menopausal women with breast cancer.
The Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials are described as"gold-standard" in the evaluation of therapeutic issues in health, since by means of this kind of study, the probability to obtain tendentious facts bias in the research is reduced, thus, privileging the quality of information.
Regarding the level of evidence, level 1 articles according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine were considered, which include:Systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials; Randomized controlled clinical trial with confidence interval; Therapeutic results of“all or nothing” type.