SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
What to Do When Everyone Wants You to Collaborate: Managing the Demand for Library Support in Systematic Review Searching
12 references·0 citing·49 second hop
What to Do When Everyone Wants You to Collaborate: Managing the Demand for Library Support in Systematic Review Searching (2015)What to Do When Everyone Wants You to Col…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Engaging Medical Librarians to Improve the Quality of Review Articles (2014)Engaging Medical Librarians t…Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2013)Finding What Works in Health …Expert searching in health librarianship: a literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns (2012)Expert searching in health li…Building capacity in systematic review searching: a pilot program using virtual mentoring (2012)Building capacity in systemat…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009)A typology of reviews: an ana…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide (2006)Systematic reviews in the soc…Systematic Reviews and Librarians (2006)Systematic Reviews and Librar…The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study. (2005)The librarian's roles in the …Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. (2005)Systematic reviews need syste…The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1985)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews (2008)Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review (2017)The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (2019)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? (2000)A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: A 12 step guideline for authors (2012)Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough (2013)Meta-Analytic Methodology for Basic Research: A Practical Guide (2019)How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study (2003)Handsearching versus electronic searching to identify reports of randomized trials (2007)Does performance-based financing increase value for money in low- and middle- income countries? A systematic review (2016)Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines (2017)How to Conduct and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2017)Oxford English dictionary (2004)The Oxford English Dictionary Online (2004)Scoping studies: advancing the methodology (2010)Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines (2019)Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews (1994)Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions (2002)Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews (2016)It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks (2018)Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research (1976)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)The Systematic Review Team: Contributions of the Health Sciences Librarian (2011)Systematic review on B2B branding: research issues and avenues for future research (2012)Brand hate: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2022)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)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)Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada (2015)Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020)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

  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2009A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies10,781 cited
  • 2020Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,670 cited
  • 2006Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide4,089 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2013Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews949 cited
  • 2005Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.257 cited
  • 2005The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study.111 cited
  • 2006Systematic Reviews and Librarians84 cited
  • 2014Engaging Medical Librarians to Improve the Quality of Review Articles78 cited
  • 2012Expert searching in health librarianship: a literature review to identify international issues and Australian concerns21 cited
  • 2012Building capacity in systematic review searching: a pilot program using virtual mentoring13 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