Zu viele Schmerzzeitschriften und zu wenig Gutachter

Too many pain journals and too few reviewers

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Literatur

  1. 1.

    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Junker C, Egger M, Schneider M, Zellweger T, Antes G (1996) The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276:1876–1877 (author reply 1877)

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Eysenbach G (2004) Improving the quality of web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‑Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6:e34

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prof. Dr. L. Radbruch.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

L. Radbruch und H.-G. Schaible geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Radbruch, L., Schaible, HG. Zu viele Schmerzzeitschriften und zu wenig Gutachter. Schmerz 31, 405–406 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-017-0224-z

Download citation