References

• 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
• 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration28,094 cited
• 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
• 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration17,627 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
• 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
• 2008Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies3,791 cited
• 2008Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies3,395 cited
• 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials3,309 cited
• 2002How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?3,021 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
• 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited