Citation map · Study

Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics?

16 references·12 citing·33 second hop

this work references cited by second hop

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
1998The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.8,247 cited
1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs3,561 cited
1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement3,337 cited
2001Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses2,285 cited
1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
2002Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in Context.1,363 cited
1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists1,306 cited
2001Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies919 cited
1998The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials769 cited
1991Workplace ergonomic factors and the development of musculoskeletal disorders of the neck and upper limbs: A meta‐analysis

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

References

Cited by