Principles of and Procedures for Systematic Reviews

2001-01-01review253 citationsclosed

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

This chapter contains section titled: Summary points Developing a Review Protocol Objectives and Eligibility Criteria Literature Search Selection of Studies, Assessment of Methodological Quality and Data Extraction Presenting, Combining and Interpreting Results Standardised Outcome Measure Graphical Display Heterogeneity Between Study Results Methods for Estimating a Combined Effect Estimate Bayesian Meta—Analysis Sensitivity Analysis Relative or Absolute Measures of Effect' Conclusions Acknowledgements

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 253 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?

1995Empirical Evidence of Bias

1995The Handbook of Research Synthesis.

1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?

1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials

1991Publication bias in clinical research

1997Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures

Cited by

2016Empathy and Callous–Unemotional Traits in Different Bullying Roles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016Effects of Psychological and Psychosocial Interventions on Sport Performance: A Meta-Analysis

2007Not all systematic reviews are created equal: Considerations for appraisal

2006Despite technical problems personal digital assistants outperform pen and paper when collecting patient diary data

2002Where now for meta-analysis?

2007Synthesising quantitative and qualitative research in evidence-based patient information

2011A systematic review of stress management interventions with sport performers.

2005Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies