Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Two independent reviewers used the methodological criteria published by the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Data to assess the quality of four posters presenting the results of retrospective database studies on the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (epoetin alfa, epoetin beta, or darbepoetin alfa) for treating patients with cancer. A third reviewer consolidated the results. Overall, from the information reported in the four posters, their methodological quality ranged from poor to very poor; only a few of the criteria were satisfactorily addressed. The quality of the data sources and the research design received very poor scores. Key elements such as selection bias were not considered. These findings caution against the use of posters without appropriate assessment of their methodological quality. The ISPOR guidelines for the evaluation of retrospective analyses are a useful tool for assessing the quality of scientific posters.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2007.02.005 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!