Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?

11 references·1 citing·45 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1993The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care562 cited
1998Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses534 cited
1998Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials428 cited
1995The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care373 cited
2007Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned115 cited
2007The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal*112 cited
2002A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals111 cited
2007Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care96 cited
2007Systematic Reviews: Time to Address Clinical and Policy Relevance As Well As Methodological Rigor64 cited
2007Response to paper by Lang A, Edwards N, and Fleiszer A26 cited
2008Systematic reviews and original articles differ in relevance, novelty, and use in an evidence-based service for physicians: PLUS project21 cited

Cited by

2013Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: past and future9 cited

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