SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Systematic reviews: what they are, why they are important, and how to get involved
11 references·2 citing·46 second hop
Systematic reviews: what they are, why they are important, and how to get involved (2012)Systematic reviews: what they are, why th…An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (2013)An Introduction to Systematic…Selecting Studies and Collecting Data (2008)Selecting Studies and Collect…Searching for Studies (2008)Searching for StudiesAssessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Assessing Risk of Bias in Inc…Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses (2008)Analysing Data and Undertakin…How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)How Quickly Do Systematic Rev…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Systematic literature reviews (2005)Systematic literature reviewsSystematic Reviews: The Experiences of a PhD Student (2002)Systematic Reviews: The Exper…Examining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews (2001)Examining the Evidence in Ane…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Assessing the quality of repo…Circular economy in construction: A systematic review of knowledge gaps towards a novel research framework (2023)Circular economy in construct…Paperfetcher : A tool to automate handsearching and citation searching for systematic reviews (2022)Paperfetcher : A tool to auto…Aggregate data meta‐analysis with time‐to‐event outcomes (2002)Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis (2007)Flexible working conditions and their effects on employee health and wellbeing (2010)Exercise for anxiety disorders: systematic review (2013)Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature (2022)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research (2010)GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness (2011)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2014)The role of masculinity in men's help-seeking for depression: A systematic review (2016)Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity (2017)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials (1997)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap (2014)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how (2017)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The Cochrane Library (2005)Small & medium-sized enterprises and Corporate Social Responsibility: a systematic review of the literature (2012)Application of computable general equilibrium (CGE) to climate change mitigation policy: A systematic review (2017)Gender differences in information and communication technology use & skills: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2021)An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009)Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews (2011)Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study (2014)Using systematic review methods within a Ph.D. dissertation in political science: challenges and lessons learned from practice (2012)Assessing Quality in Systematic Literature Reviews: A Study of Novice Rater Training (2020)The Effectiveness of Collaborative Learning on Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Metacognitive Skill Ability: Meta-Analysis on Biological Learning (2022)Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health (2013)RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses (2013)Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2008Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies3,395 cited
  • 2008Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta‐Analyses1,795 cited
  • 2013An Introduction to Systematic Reviews1,235 cited
  • 2007How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis837 cited
  • 2008Searching for Studies599 cited
  • 2008Selecting Studies and Collecting Data467 cited
  • 2005Systematic literature reviews146 cited
  • 2002Systematic Reviews: The Experiences of a PhD Student105 cited
  • 2001Examining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews75 cited

Cited by

  • 2023Circular economy in construction: A systematic review of knowledge gaps towards a novel research framework77 cited
  • 2022Paperfetcher : A tool to automate handsearching and citation searching for systematic reviews34 cited

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work