Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Pitfalls in meta‐analyses on adverse events reported from clinical trials

9 references·3 citing·45 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 Elaboration10,345 cited
1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement4,828 cited
2004What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta‐analysis of sparse data1,731 cited
2004Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement1,588 cited
2006Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta‐analytical methods with rare events938 cited
2008AHRQ Series Paper 4: Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program184 cited
2005Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Assess Treatment Harms147 cited
2008Exact and efficient inference procedure for meta-analysis and its application to the analysis of independent 2 x 2 tables with all available data but without artificial continuity correction119 cited
2008Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results64 cited

Cited by

2018Systematic review and meta-analysis in GI endoscopy: Why do we need them? How can we read them? Should we trust them?15 cited
2015Meta-analyses of pain studies: What we have learned11 cited
2016Comparative rates of harms in randomized trials from more developed versus less developed countries may be different10 cited

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