Abstract
Robinson and Sohal[1][1] criticize our guideline[2][2] for not giving sufficient weight to the CANRISK instrument, which he and his colleagues developed, whereas Stone[3][3] criticizes our guideline for recommending that CANRISK be used. Finally, Ball[4][4] and colleagues prefer an alternative
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
