SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A systematic assessment of the quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses in radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma
8 references·0 citing·32 second hop
A systematic assessment of the quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses in radiofrequency ablation versus hepatic resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma (2014)A systematic assessment of the quality of…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Methodological index for non‐randomized studies ( MINORS ): development and validation of a new instrument (2003)Methodological index for non‐…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Assessing the quality of repo…Validation of an index of the quality of review articles (1991)Validation of an index of the…Agreement among reviewers of review articles (1991)Agreement among reviewers of …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 feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015)Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? (2020)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. (1986)The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation (1991)A Reliability-Generalization Study of Journal Peer Reviews: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Determinants (2010)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial (1981)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests (1994)Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. (2002)Systematic review of reviews of intervention components associated with increased effectiveness in dietary and physical activity interventions (2011)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)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)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency (2014)Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range (2014)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
  • 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
  • 2003Methodological index for non‐randomized studies ( MINORS ): development and validation of a new instrument7,590 cited
  • 2020Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,670 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration5,525 cited
  • 1991Validation of an index of the quality of review articles788 cited
  • 1991Agreement among reviewers of review articles283 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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