SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Revisões sistemáticas em desporto e saúde: Orientações para o planeamento, elaboração, redação e avaliação
16 references·1 citing·41 second hop
Revisões sistemáticas em desporto e saúde: Orientações para o planeamento, elaboração, redação e avaliação (2014)Revisões sistemáticas em desporto e saúde…Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2012)Systematic Reviews and Meta-A…Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Systematic reviews: CRD's gui…From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~! (2010)From Systematic Reviews to Cl…CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updat…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for repo…AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)AMSTAR is a reliable and vali…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporti…External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) (2007)External Validation of a Meas…Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2004)Clinical trial registration: …The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revise…The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials (1999)Assessing the Quality of Rand…The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)The feasibility of creating a…Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the Quality of Repo…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Assessing the quality of repo…Revisão sistemática na área de Ensino e Educação Matemática: análise do processo e proposição de etapas Systematic review in the area of Mathematical Education and Teaching: analysis of the process and proposal of steps (2021)Revisão sistemática na área d…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1984)The theory of planned behavior (1991)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews (2014)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields (2004)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Methodological index for non‐randomized studies ( MINORS ): development and validation of a new instrument (2003)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Fundamental Movement Skills in Children and Adolescents (2010)The Role of Behavioral Science Theory in Development and Implementation of Public Health Interventions (2010)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force (2013)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials (2013)Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): Explanation and Elaboration (2015)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations (2003)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 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
  • 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials9,314 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
  • 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials5,372 cited
  • 2010Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care3,245 cited
  • 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials3,126 cited
  • 2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies2,698 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
  • 1999Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials649 cited
  • 2007External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

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

569 cited
  • 2004Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors408 cited
  • 2010From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~!329 cited
  • 2012Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses275 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2021Revisão sistemática na área de Ensino e Educação Matemática: análise do processo e proposição de etapas Systematic review in the area of Mathematical Education and Teaching: analysis of the process and proposal of steps26 cited