References

• 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
• 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
• 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
• 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials1,026 cited
• 2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review873 cited
• 2004The Number, Quality, and Coverage of Randomized Controlled Trials in Nephrology342 cited
• 1989Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis338 cited
• 2002THE QUALITY OF REPORTING OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY FROM 1988 THROUGH 2000243 cited
• 1990An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials241 cited
• 2006Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned207 cited
• 1986A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer.195 cited
• 2001The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of homeopathy, herbal medicines and acupuncture186 cited
• 2005Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors