Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

16 references·7 citing·28 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration28,094 cited
2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration10,345 cited
2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence8,270 cited
2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
2011GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision2,681 cited
2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
2011GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias1,817 cited
2011Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases978 cited
2012GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes761 cited
2009AHRQ Series Paper 5: Grading the strength of a body of evidence when comparing medical interventions—Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Effective Health-Care Program512 cited
2011Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis

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

403 cited

2013The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses369 cited

2013Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?196 cited

2014Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality112 cited

Cited by

2022Faculty appointment and promotion in Taiwan’s medical schools, a systematic analysis37 cited
2020What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions32 cited
2022One-Third of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation Applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) System to Evaluate Certainty of Evidence: A Meta-Research Study24 cited
2017High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine23 cited
2023Standing on the shoulders of bias: lack of transparency and reporting of critical rigor characteristics in pain research22 cited
2016Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-201414 cited
2024The impact of an online course on agreement rates of the certainty of evidence assessment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach: a before-and-after study11 cited