The authors are very grateful to Candice Estellat and Raphaele Seror who helped validate the computer learning program. We also thank P. Tugwell for very helpful comments. Lola Fourcade was supported by a grant from the Medical Academy of France ,
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?, The Lancet, vol.352, issue.9128, pp.609-613, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X
Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology, BMJ, vol.312, issue.7033, pp.742-744, 1996. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.312.7033.742
CONSORT: An Evolving Tool to Help Improve the Quality of Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials, JAMA, vol.279, issue.18, pp.1489-1491, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.279.18.1489
Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials, JAMA, vol.287, issue.22, pp.2973-2982, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.22.2973
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.273, issue.5, pp.408-412, 1995. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.273.5.408
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement, The Lancet, vol.354, issue.9193, pp.1896-1900, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.X, 2006. ,
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study, BMJ, vol.330, issue.7499, p.1053, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists, Controlled Clinical Trials, vol.16, issue.1, pp.62-73, 1995. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W
The influence of methodologic quality on the conclusion of a landmark meta-analysis on thrombolytic therapy, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, vol.18, pp.11-23, 2002. ,
The Delphi List, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.51, issue.12, pp.1235-1241, 1998. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00131-0
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?, Controlled Clinical Trials, vol.17, issue.1, pp.1-12, 1996. ,
DOI : 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol.58, issue.12, pp.1233-1240, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.05.004
Letter to the editor, Controlled Clinical Trials, vol.22, issue.6, pp.687-688, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0197-2456(01)00147-7
Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials, JAMA, vol.285, issue.15, pp.2000-2003, 2001. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.285.15.2000
Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials, Controlled Clinical Trials, vol.20, issue.5, pp.448-452, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0197-2456(99)00026-4
What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials, BMJ, vol.319, issue.7211, pp.670-674, 1999. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670
Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines, The Lancet, vol.348, issue.9027, pp.596-598, 1996. ,
DOI : 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)01201-9
Post-randomisation exclusions: the intention to treat principle and excluding patients from analysis, BMJ, vol.325, issue.7365, pp.652-654, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.325.7365.652
Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism, European Heart Journal, vol.27, issue.2, pp.227-236, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1093/eurheartj/ehi587
Educational software: Computer assisted instruction, 1996. ,
Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial, BMJ, vol.328, issue.7441, p.673, 2004. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.38023.700775.AE
Effects of Editorial Peer Review, JAMA, vol.287, issue.21, pp.2784-2786, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.287.21.2784
Allocation Concealment in Clinical Trials, JAMA, vol.288, issue.19, pp.2406-2407, 2002. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.288.19.2406-JLT1120-4-1
Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study, BMJ, vol.330, issue.7499, p.1049, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1136/bmj.38414.422650.8F
Subverting Randomization in Controlled Trials, JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.274, issue.18, pp.1456-1458, 1995. ,
DOI : 10.1001/jama.1995.03530180050029
Intention-to-treat principle, CMAJ, vol.165, pp.1339-1341, 2001. ,
Violation of the intent-to-treat principle and rate of missing data in superiority trials assessing structural outcomes in rheumatic diseases, Arthritis & Rheumatism, vol.55, issue.6, pp.1858-1865, 2005. ,
DOI : 10.1002/art.21116
Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials, Phys Ther, vol.83, pp.713-721, 2003. ,