Clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction: Should we adjust for baseline characteristics?
- 31 May 2000
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Elsevier BV in American Heart Journal
- Vol. 139 (5), 745-751
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8703(00)90001-2
Abstract
No abstract availableThis publication has 39 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparison of Continuous Infusion of Alteplase with Double-Bolus Administration for Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- A Comparison of Reteplase with Alteplase for Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Adjunctive Drug Therapy of Acute Myocardial Infarction — Evidence from Clinical TrialsThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1996
- A Comparison of Recombinant Hirudin with Heparin for the Treatment of Acute Coronary SyndromesThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1996
- Oral captopril versus placebo among 13 634 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction: interim report from the Chinese Cardiac Study (CCS-1)The Lancet, 1995
- ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1995
- Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patientsThe Lancet, 1994
- An International Randomized Trial Comparing Four Thrombolytic Strategies for Acute Myocardial InfarctionThe New England Journal of Medicine, 1993
- ISIS-3: a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs tissue plasminogen activator vs anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs aspirin alone among 41 299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarctionThe Lancet, 1992
- Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trialsThe Lancet, 1990