journaljpri.com的 10 大竞争对手

ijpsr.com

international journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research (ijpsr) is an official publication of society of pharmaceutical sciences & research. it is an open access online and print international journal published monthly. website: www.ijpsr.com projected impact factor (2012): 2.44, icv 2012: 5.50, 2011: 5.07, 2010: 4.57 doi: 10.13040/ijpsr.0975-8232 sj impact factor (2012): 3.226 global impact factor (2013): 0.533, (2012): 0.452 indexing - embase- elsevier's

pharmacyjournal.org

Pharmacy journal is an international, peer reviewed, indexed, refereed, open-access, open access and printed journal.

aaps.org

the site home page

pcne.org

I. General information Contact details of the person responsible Pharmaceutical Care Network EuropeProfessional secretariatProf. Kurt E. HersbergerHolbeinstraße 33CH-4051 Basel (Switzerland)info@pcne.org II. Specific information on the collection of personal data 1. Visiting the website a) Purpose of data collection and processing Each time a user accesses a page of our website and each time a file […]

thepharmajournal.com

The Pharma Innovation, an pharmaceutical journal covers the field of Pharmaceutics, Pharmacognosy, Pharmaceutical chemistry, Phytochemistry, Pharmacology. This journal provides the research ground for the researchers and provides them proper support.

abccardiol.org

Prêmio SBC de Publicação Científica   A cerimônia de premiação acontecerá no 80º Congresso Brasileiro de Cardiologia, em São Paulo, no dia 20 de setembro de 2025 (sábado), de 13h30 às 14h30, no Auditório 07. O Prêmio será destinado aos autores nacionais do melhor Artigo Original publicado nas revistas ABC Cardiol, IJCS, ABC Imagem e ABC HF em 2024. Haverá premiação ao manuscrito nacional mais citado nos últimos dois anos, a saber: artigo mais citado publicado em 2022 e 2023 em 2024, [...]

inquiriesjournal.com

This paper investigates factors that contribute to the effectiveness of international economic sanctions. A review of existing literature on sanctions reveals that scholars of economic statecraft have largely neglected to consider two variables &ndash...

indianpediatrics.net

indian pediatrics is the topmost ranking specialty journal of south east asia, the region which is currently the focus of attention for most child health programs in the world in view of its tremendous scope and potential in improving child survival. the journal emphasizes on adopting evidence based and unbiased approach towards common childhood problems.

ebm.bmj.com

Inconsistency is a key domain that determines the certainty of evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach specifically defines inconsistency as the variability in results across studies, and not variability in study characteristics, eligibility criteria or design.1 Statistical measures of heterogeneity are often used to assess inconsistency, however, major limitations of such measures have been described. For example, Cochran’s Q test for homogeneity is usually underpowered to detect heterogeneity. The I2 index which is the most commonly used measure, underestimate true statistical heterogeneity when there are fewer than 10 studies in a meta-analysis, which is a common scenario, and is correlated with the sample size of the included studies.2 The I2 index is also often misunderstood as an indicator of the spread of the effect size. Borenstein demonstrates how a meta-analysis with I2 index of 25% can have more spread of the effect size than a meta-analysis with I2 index of 75%.3 Therefore, GRADE guidance on inconsistency recommended less reliance on statistical measures and instead, instructed to make judgements about whether studies in a meta-analysis provide estimates that are clinically importantly different from each other.1 However, there are no existing tools to facilitate this process making it highly subjective. Users are instructed to look at a forest plot and evaluate the similarity of point estimates of the included studies and the overlap of their CIs, and make a judgement based on values that they consider clinically important. Merely counting studies does not work because some studies can be outliers but may have a very small weight within the pooled effect estimate. Having multiple thresholds makes this task even more difficult. Furthermore, in the case of binary outcomes, decision thresholds are based on absolute treatment effects4 5 whereas …