SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Letter to the Editor
9 references·6 citing·45 second hop
Letter to the Editor (2007)Letter to the EditorEvaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews (2006)Evaluation of the Quality of …Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies (2005)Selective Reporting Biases in…Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) (2005)Reporting Recommendations for…Primer: an evidence-based approach to prognostic markers (2005)Primer: an evidence-based app…Identification of Clinically Useful Cancer Prognostic Factors: What Are We Missing? (2005)Identification of Clinically …Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative (2003)Towards Complete and Accurate…Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future (2003)Reporting of prognostic marke…The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials (2001)The CONSORT Statement: Revise…Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables (2001)Systematic reviews of evaluat…Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies (2022)Structured reporting to impro…Doug Altman: Driving critical appraisal and improvements in the quality of methodological and medical research (2020)Doug Altman: Driving critical…The increasing need for systematic reviews of prognosis studies: strategies to facilitate review production and improve quality of primary research (2019)The increasing need for syste…Doug Altman's legacy to Cochrane and evidence synthesis (2018)Doug Altman's legacy to Cochr…Multivariate meta‐analysis of prognostic factor studies with multiple cut‐points and/or methods of measurement (2015)Multivariate meta‐analysis of…Mortality Risk Prediction (2015)Mortality Risk PredictionImproving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews (2005)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD statement (2015)Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints (1998)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Meta‐Analysis in Medical Research (2005)Recent developments in meta‐analysis (2007)A guide to systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic factor studies (2019)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)Systematic Reviews in Health Care (2001)Is compensation “bad for health”? A systematic meta-review (2010)Chapter 12: Systematic Review of Prognostic Tests (2012)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2008)Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses (2011)Evidence synthesis in prognosis research (2019)Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar (2019)Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies with multiple thresholds for data integration (2022)Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research (2000)Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond (2009)Ten steps towards improving prognosis research (2009)Evaluating the Quality of Research into a Single Prognostic Biomarker: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 83 Studies of C-Reactive Protein in Stable Coronary Artery Disease (2010)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement (2015)Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement (2015)The Handbook of Research Synthesis. (1995)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews (2007)Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Excess Mortality in Depression in the General Community Versus Patients With Specific Illnesses (2014)Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist (2014)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results (2007)Methods for meta-analysis in genetic association studies: a review of their potential and pitfalls (2007)Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración (2009)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Evidence-Based Assessment and Application of Prognostic Markers: The Long Way from Single Studies to Meta-Analysis (2006)Did the reporting of prognostic studies of tumour markers improve since the introduction of REMARK guideline? A comparison of reporting in published articles (2017)Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative3,215 cited
  • 2001The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials2,545 cited
  • 2005Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK)2,148 cited
  • 2006Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews1,452 cited
  • 2001Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables757 cited
  • 2005Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor Studies231 cited
  • 2003Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future166 cited
  • 2005Identification of Clinically Useful Cancer Prognostic Factors: What Are We Missing?78 cited
  • 2005Primer: an evidence-based approach to prognostic markers76 cited

Cited by

  • 2015Multivariate meta‐analysis of prognostic factor studies with multiple cut‐points and/or methods of measurement40 cited
  • 2022Structured reporting to improve transparency of analyses in prognostic marker studies27 cited
  • 2020Doug Altman: Driving critical appraisal and improvements in the quality of methodological and medical research17 cited
  • 2019The increasing need for systematic reviews of prognosis studies: strategies to facilitate review production and improve quality of primary research

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

16 cited
  • 2015Mortality Risk Prediction16 cited
  • 2018Doug Altman's legacy to Cochrane and evidence synthesis10 cited