Comparison of basic methods in clinical studies and in vitro tissue and cell culture studies reported in three anaesthesia journals

16Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Tissue and cell culture (in vitro) studies reported in the 1997 issues of the British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesia and Analgesia, and Anesthesiology were compared with groups of clinical studies selected at random from the same issues. Comparisons were of some basic aspects of study design and reporting that might lead to bias. The aspects examined were sample size, randomization and reporting of exclusions and withdrawals. Two groups of 53 articles were compared: sample size was smaller in in vitro than in clinical studies (median 6 vs 19); randomization was reported in five in vitro studies and in 37 clinical studies; and failures were reported in two in vitro studies and in 43 clinical studies. This hinders interpretation of reported tissue and cell culture studies. Where possible, tissue and cell culture studies should be conducted, reported and assessed for publication to standards equivalent to those for clinical studies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Watters, M. P. R., & Goodman, N. W. (1999). Comparison of basic methods in clinical studies and in vitro tissue and cell culture studies reported in three anaesthesia journals. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 82(2), 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/82.2.295

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free