SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A look at the potential association between PICOT framing of a research question and the quality of reporting of analgesia RCTs
16 references·1 citing·33 second hop
A look at the potential association between PICOT framing of a research question and the quality of reporting of analgesia RCTs (2013)A look at the potential association betwe…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updat…CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and …Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Empirical evidence of bias in…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies (2008)Chapter 8: Assessing risk of …Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (2006)Does the CONSORT checklist im…Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials (2001)Use of the CONSORT Statement …The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revise…The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revise…Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Assessing the quality of cont…The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. D…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasThe scandal of poor medical research (1994)The scandal of poor medical r…The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Measurement of Observer A…The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: A systematic survey (2017)The framing of research quest…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)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)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)CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials (2010)SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials (2013)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials (2001)The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews (2003)Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews (2008)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)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)Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide (2014)Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (2014)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)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)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. (1994)Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial Reliability and Validity Data (1997)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data81,000 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials13,365 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials8,873 cited
  • 2020Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,670 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
  • 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials5,372 cited
  • 2008Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies3,791 cited
  • 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials3,309 cited
  • 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials2,754 cited
  • 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2001

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

Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials
1,026 cited
  • 1994The scandal of poor medical research897 cited
  • 2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review873 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2017The framing of research questions using the PICOT format in randomized controlled trials of venous ulcer disease is suboptimal: A systematic survey9 cited