Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials

5 references·16 citing·45 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test56,637 cited
1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
1997Evaluation : methods for studying programs and policies921 cited
1997Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects820 cited

Cited by

2002Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.880 cited
2004What Can Police Do to Reduce Crime, Disorder, and Fear?789 cited
2009The Principles of Effective Correctional Treatment Also Apply To Sexual Offenders774 cited
20152015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group704 cited
2004Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment697 cited
2014Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials533 cited
2011Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials439 cited
2009Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian 'levels of evidence'435 cited
2003Evidence-based behavioral medicine: What is it and how do we achieve it?

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

409 cited

2000Which clinical studies provide the best evidence?384 cited

2002Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ research380 cited

2009RE: "SHOULD META-ANALYSES OF INTERVENTIONS INCLUDE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ADDITION TO RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS? A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES"375 cited

2000A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.311 cited

2005The Randomized Controlled Trial: gold standard, or merely standard?300 cited

2000Statistics in medical journals: some recent trends255 cited

2001The art of quality assessment of RCTs included in systematic reviews245 cited