Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process

8 references·16 citing·47 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 Elaboration28,094 cited
2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias1,544 cited
2010The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews1,133 cited
2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews891 cited
2002Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice755 cited
2011Frequency and reasons for outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: interviews with trialists220 cited
2000Bias in Meta-Analysis Due to Outcome Variable Selection Within Studies194 cited
2002Publishing Protocols of Systematic Reviews188 cited

Cited by

2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews163 cited
2011Best Practice in Systematic Reviews: The Importance of Protocols and Registration160 cited
2015CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015: Explanation and elaboration154 cited
2016Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015148 cited
2015CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015: explanation and elaboration143 cited

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

2014Outcomes in Cochrane Systematic Reviews Addressing Four Common Eye Conditions: An Evaluation of Completeness and Comparability120 cited

2013Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer118 cited

2014How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO113 cited

2017Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)113 cited

2020Transparency and Reproducibility of Meta-Analyses in Psychology: A Meta-Review100 cited

2019Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta‐Reviews91 cited

2017Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search91 cited

2016Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?80 cited

2013Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews78 cited

2016A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study73 cited

2017Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study69 cited