Article information
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliogrífia
[1.]
F. Rodríguez Artalejo.
Gaceta Sanitaria: balance y perspectivas.
Gac Sanit, 9 (1995), pp. 155-158
[2.]
K.F. Schulz, I. Chalmers, R.J. Hayes, D.G. Altman.
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.
JAMA, 273 (1995), pp. 408-414
[3.]
A. Trilla.
Por qué y cómo se aceptan o rechazan artículos para su publicación en las revistas biomédicas.
Med Clin (Barc), 95 (1990), pp. 732-734
[4.]
R.A. McNutt, A.T. Evans, R.H. Fletcher, S.W. Fletcher.
The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.
JAMA, 263 (1990), pp. 1371-1376
[5.]
A.T. Evans, R.A. McNutt, S.W. Fletcher, R.H. Fletcher.
The caracteristics of peer reviewers who produce good quality reviews.
J Gen Intern Med, 8 (1993), pp. 422-428
[6.]
M. Fisher, S.B. Friedman, B. Strauss.
The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.
JAMA, 272 (1994), pp. 143-146
Copyright © 1996. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
