Cite
Investigator-Reported Bleeding Versus Post Hoc Adjudication of Bleeding: Lessons From the CHAMPION PHOENIX Trial.
MLA
Jatene, Tannas, et al. “Investigator-Reported Bleeding Versus Post Hoc Adjudication of Bleeding: Lessons From the CHAMPION PHOENIX Trial.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), vol. 67, no. 5, Feb. 2016, pp. 596–98. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.11.027.
APA
Jatene, T., Harrington, R. A., Stone, G. W., Steg, P. G., Gibson, C. M., Hamm, C. W., Price, M. J., Prats, J., Deliargyris, E. N., Mahaffey, K. W., White, H. D., Bhatt, D. L., & CHAMPION PHOENIX Investigators. (2016). Investigator-Reported Bleeding Versus Post Hoc Adjudication of Bleeding: Lessons From the CHAMPION PHOENIX Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), 67(5), 596–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.11.027
Chicago
Jatene, Tannas, Robert A. Harrington, Gregg W. Stone, Ph. Gabriel Steg, C. Michael Gibson, Christian W. Hamm, Matthew J. Price, et al. 2016. “Investigator-Reported Bleeding Versus Post Hoc Adjudication of Bleeding: Lessons From the CHAMPION PHOENIX Trial.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) 67 (5): 596–98. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.11.027.