SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Visualization of evidence‐based medicine domain knowledge: production and citation of cochrane systematic reviews
16 references·0 citing·47 second hop
Visualization of evidence‐based medicine domain knowledge: production and citation of cochrane systematic reviews (2013)Visualization of evidence‐based medicine …Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting (2010)Clinical trials should begin …Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process (2010)Bias Due to Changes in Specif…An international registry of systematic-review protocols (2010)An international registry of …Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Avoidable waste in the produc…When and how to update systematic reviews (2008)When and how to update system…Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster (2008)Systematic reviews can be pro…Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods (2008)Comparisons of results of pub…How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)How Quickly Do Systematic Rev…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews (2007)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews (2007)A systematic review identifie…Working Within and Beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to Make Systematic Reviews More Useful to Healthcare Managers and Policy Makers (2006)Working Within and Beyond the…Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies (2006)Evidence of bias and variatio…Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences (2005)Relative Citation Impact of V…Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals (2005)Adequacy and reporting of all…Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved? (1996)Fortnightly Review: How can i…Citation indexes for science. A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas† (2006)New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation (2009)Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics (2018)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials (2011)Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? (2020)SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense (2012)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting (2018)A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies (2001)Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review (2008)Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality (2018)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)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 randomized trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (2013)Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity (2017)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)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Characteristics of Effective Collaborative Care for Treatment of Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression of 74 Randomised Controlled Trials (2014)Early psychological intervention following recent trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2019)Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research (2019)Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials (1997)Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap (2014)Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how (2017)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence (2009)Variation of a test’s sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence (2013)Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis (2016)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology (2016)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence2,204 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews891 cited
  • 2007How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis837 cited
  • 2006Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies612 cited
  • 2010An international registry of systematic-review protocols513 cited
  • 2005Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences497 cited
  • 1996Fortnightly Review: How can impact factors be improved?484 cited
  • 2005Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: review of recent trials published in four general medical journals176 cited
  • 2010Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting166 cited
  • 2010Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process164 cited
  • 2008When and how to update systematic reviews151 cited
  • 2006Working Within and Beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to Make Systematic Reviews More Useful to Healthcare Managers and Policy Makers123 cited
  • 2008Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster103 cited

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

  • 2008Comparisons of results of publication counting using different methods102 cited
  • 2007A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews98 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.