SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane reviews
0 references·4 citing·16 second hop
Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane reviews (2003)Survey of claims of no effect in abstract…Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in Cochrane and other systematic reviews (2020)Claims of ‘no difference’ or …Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals (2019)Reporting and interpretation …Clinical recommendations of C ochrane reviews in three different fields of pediatrics (neonatology, neuropediatrics, and complementary and alternative medicine): A systematic analysis (2013)Clinical recommendations of C…Pitfalls in systematic reviews (2006)Pitfalls in systematic reviewsEvidence‐based medicine and Cochrane reviews in neonatology: Quo vadis? (2011)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses (2001)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Twenty years of Cochrane reviews in menstrual disorders and subfertility (2013)Sistematik Derleme Metodolojisi ve Yazımı (2022)A Step-by-Step Approach to Systematic Reviews in Educational Research (2025)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Redefine statistical significance (2017)Scientists rise up against statistical significance (2019)A review of high impact journals found that misinterpretation of non-statistically significant results from randomized trials was common (2022)On the importance of precise language use (2024)Randomized controlled trials reporting patient-reported outcomes with no significant differences between study groups are potentially susceptible to unjustified conclusions—a systematic review (2024)RevManHAL: towards automatic text generation in systematic reviews (2017)Interpreting results and drawing conclusions (2019)Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children’s health: a methodological survey (2024)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2019Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals37 cited
  • 2006Pitfalls in systematic reviews21 cited
  • 2020Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in Cochrane and other systematic reviews14 cited
  • 2013Clinical recommendations of C ochrane reviews in three different fields of pediatrics (neonatology, neuropediatrics, and complementary and alternative medicine): A systematic analysis8 cited

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