Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic review of anticholinergic agents: Clinical trials versus clinical effectiveness

  • Clinical Trials Report
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Higgins JP, et al.: Meta-analysis involving crossover trials: methodological issues. Int J Epidemiol 2002, 31:140–149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roland M, Torgerson DJ: Understanding controlled trials: What are pragmatic trials? BMJ 1998, 316:285.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. DuBeau CE, Miller KL, Bergmann M, Resnick NM: Urge incontinence outcomes in RCTs depend on assumed and not actual drug assignment. Neurourol Urodyn 2000, 19:492.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J: The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract 2001, 18:565–568.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Staskin DR, Dmochowski RR: Future studies of overactive bladder: the need for standardization. Urology 2002, 60(suppl 5A):90–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. David R. Staskin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Staskin, D.R. Systematic review of anticholinergic agents: Clinical trials versus clinical effectiveness. Curr Urol Rep 4, 419–420 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-003-0020-4

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-003-0020-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation