Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

By Gordon C. S. Smith, J. Pell. British medical journal, 2003

807 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Educating Managers From an Evidence-Based Perspective (2007, background): “No one has ever done controlled randomized trials to test whether parachutes affect survival after jumping out of a plane (Smith & Pell, 2003).”
Dietary carbohydrate restriction as the first approach in diabetes management: critical review and evidence base. (2015, neutral): “Following the legal analogy, one has to ask: Who decides on the admissibility of the evidence? The parody by Smith and Pell [99] has been described as both funny and profound in illustrating how there is not a single type of experiment that fits every scientific question.”
Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior (2011, background): “We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute’ [80].”
Evidence-Based Psychosocial Treatments for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (2008, background): “…practice parameters is particularly puzzling because such trials have been criticized for an inability to generalize to individual cases (Jacobson & Truax, 1991; Kendall & Grove, 1988) and for being simply inappropriate for answering some types of research questions (G. C. S. Smith & Pell, 2003).”