SStudyAcademic Library

Dashboard Shelves Open access My library Review

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

The problem of duplicate systematic reviews · Study

WorkThe problem of duplicate systematic reviews

David Moher2013

Work2013

The problem of duplicate systematic reviews

99 citations·0/0 files stored·BMJ

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

Systematic reviewers should identify existing reviews as a compulsory first step

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 99 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews 2009Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence 1997Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews

Cited by

2017Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study 2020Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry 2023Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews 2017A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries 2021A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste 2020The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers 2017Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?2013Misgivings about PROSPERO in solving the problem of duplicate systematic reviews

Details

Year2013

Typeeditorial

Published2013-08-14

VenueBMJ

ISSN-L1756-1833

Languageen

Citations99

Files0 public / 0

ShelfMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Identifiers

doi10.1136/bmj.f5040

openalex_workW1997062640

Links

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.