1. Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R,
Kwan I: Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires:
systematic review. BMJ 2002, 324(7347):1183-1190.
2. Yammarino FJ, Skinner SJ, Childers TL: Understanding Mail Survey
Response Behaviour - A Meta-Analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly
1991, 55(4):613-639.
3. Fox RJ, Crask MR, Kim J: Mail Survey Response Rate: A Meta-
Analysis of Selected Techniques for Inducing Response. Public
Opinion Quarterly 1988, 52(4):467-491.
4. Harvey L: Factors Affecting Response Rates to Mailed Questionnaires:
A Comprehensive Literature review. Journal of the
Market Research Society 1987, 29:341-353.
5. Kanuk L: Mail Surveys and Response Rates: A Literature
Review. Journal of Marketing Research 1975, 12:440-453.
6. Smeeth L, Fletcher AE: Improving the response rates to questionnaires.
BMJ 2002, 324(7347):1168-1169.
7. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas
R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J: Design and use of questionnaires:
a review of best practice applicable to surveys of
health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 2001,
5(31):1-256.
8. O'Cathain A: Further Analyses Would Make the Review More
Helpful - Rapid Response to Edwards et al Increasing
Response Rates to Postal Questionnaires: Systematic
Review. BMJ 2002, 324:.
9. Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R: Why do we need some large, simple
randomised trials? Stat Med 1984, 3(4):409-422.
10. Maxim PS: Quantitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences.
New York, Oxford , Oxford University Press; 1999.
11. Schulz KF, Grimes DA: Sample size slippages in randomised trials:
exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet 2002,
359(9308):781-785.
12. Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R: Principles of exposure measurement
in epidemiology. In Monographs in Epidemiology and
Biostatistics Volume 21. New York , Oxford University Press;
1995:294-321.
13. BMJ Cite Track Alert [http://bmj.com/cgi/alerts/ctmain]
14. BioMail Medline Search version 0.72pre [http://biomail.source
forge.net/biomail].
15. McCaul LA, Cooper PG: Techniques to increase the response
rate in follow-up studies: results of a pilot test. Int J Rehabil Res
1979, 2(4):465-470.
16. The Chambers Dictionary. Edited by: Anderson S, Carey L, Cullen
K, Flackett S, Grandison A. Chambers Harrap Publishers Ltd;
1998.
17. Clarke M, Oxman AD: Assessment of Study Quality. Cochrane
Reviewers' Handbook In: The Cochrane Library 2003, 4.2.0(2):.
18. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter
LM, Knipschild PG: The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality
assessment of randomised clinical trials for conducting systematic
reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol
1998, 51(12):1235-1241.
19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a metaanalysis.
Stat Med 2002, 21(11):1539-1558.
20. Iglesias C, Torgerson D: Does length of questionnaire matter?
A randomised trial of response rates to a mailed questionnaire.
J Health Serv Res Policy 2000, 5(4):219-221.
21. Dorman PJ, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis MS, Sandercock PA: A randomised
comparison of the EuroQol and Short Form-36
after stroke. United Kingdom collaborators in the International
Stroke Trial. BMJ 1997, 315(7106):461.
22. Dunn KM, Jordan K, Croft PR: Does questionnaire structure
influence response in postal surveys? J Clin Epidemiol 2003,
56(1):10-16.
23. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Reeves R, Bruster S, Richards N: Properties
of the Picker Patient Experience questionnaire in a randomised
controlled trial of long versus short form survey
instruments. J Public Health Med 2003, 25(3):197-201.
24. Jones R, Zhou M, Yates WR: Improving return rates for healthcare
outcome. Psychol Rep 2000, 87(2):639-642.
25. Ward J, Boyle C, Long D, Ovadia C: Patient surveys in general
practice: a randomised trial of an instant lottery ticket to
increase return rate. Aust Fam Physician 1996, Suppl 1:S19-20.
26. Leigh Brown AP, Lawrie HE, Kennedy AD, Webb JA, Torgerson DJ,
Grant AM: Cost effectiveness of a prize draw on response to a
postal questionnaire: results of a randomised trial among
orthopaedic outpatients in Edinburgh. J Epidemiol Community
Health 1997, 51(4):463-464.
27. Evans BR, Peterson BL, Demark-Wahnefried W: No Difference in
Response Rate to a Mailed Survey among Prostate Cancer
Survivors Using Conditional versus Unconditional Incentives.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004, 13(2):277-278.
28. McColl E, Eccles MP, Rousseau NS, Steen IN, Parkin DW, Grimshaw
JM: From the generic to the condition-specific?: Instrument
order effects in Quality of Life Assessment. Med Care 2003,
41(7):777-790.
29. Tai SS, Nazareth I, Haines A, Jowett C: A randomized trial of the
impact of telephone and recorded delivery reminders on the
response rate to research questionnaires. J Public Health Med
1997, 19(2):219-221.
30. Salim Silva M, Smith WT, Bammer G: Telephone reminders are a
cost effective way to improve responses in postal health surveys.
J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56(2):115-118.
31. Sutherland HJ, Beaton M, Mazer R, Kriukov V, Boyd NF: A randomized
trial of the total design method for the postal followup
of women in a cancer prevention trial. Eur J Cancer Prev
1996, 5(3):165-168.
32. Parkes R, Kreiger N, James B, Johnson KC: Effects on subject
response of information brochures and small cash incentives
in a mail-based case-control study. Ann Epidemiol 2000,
10(2):117-124.
33. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB:
Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM.
Edinburgh , Churchill Livingstone; 2000:108-109.
34. Meinert CL, Tonascia S: Clinical Trials: Design, Conduct and
Analysis. New York , Oxford University Press; 1986:160-161.
35. Ludemann R, Watson DI, Jamieson GG: Influence of follow-up
methodology and completeness on apparent clinical outcome
of fundoplication. Am J Surg 2003, 186(2):143-147.
36. Heberlein TA, Baumgartner R: Factors Affecting Response Rates
to Mailed Questionnaires: A Quantitative Analysis of the
Published Literature. American Sociological Review 1978,
43(4):447-462.
37. Kerlinger RN: Foundations of behavioral research. Second edition.
New York , Holt, Rinehart; 1975.
38. Edwards P, Roberts I, Sandercock P, Frost C: Follow-up by mail in
clinical trials: does questionnaire length matter? Control Clin
Trials 2004, 25(1):31-52.
39. Bowling A: Research Methods in Health. Buckingham, Philadelphia
, Open University Press; 1997:234-235.
40. Harrison RA, Holt D, Elton PJ: Do postage-stamps increase
response rates to postal surveys? A randomized controlled
trial. Int J Epidemiol 2002, 31(4):872-874.
41. Kalantar JS, Talley NJ: The effects of lottery incentive and length
of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomized
study. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52(11):1117-1122.