References

• 2008Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies3,791 cited
• 2008Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies3,395 cited
• 2000Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context2,307 cited
• 2003How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study1,181 cited
• 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German1,029 cited
• 2002Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study891 cited
• 1996Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews538 cited
• 2012Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors485 cited
• 2011Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis403 cited
• 2005Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary206 cited
• 2007The Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Survey of 13 Randomly Selected Journals from Mainland China140 cited
• 2005For randomized controlled trials, the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine was as good as reports of conventional medicine56 cited