Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Impact of document type on reporting quality of clinical drug trials: a comparison of registry reports, clinical study reports, and journal publications

16 references·15 citing·45 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

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
2010Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,176 cited
2011CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials2,342 cited
2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials1,845 cited
2009Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results897 cited
2000Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?811 cited
2008Searching for Studies599 cited
2010Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network589 cited
2003Registering Clinical Trials511 cited
2010The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed503 cited
2005Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals472 cited
2010Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review

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

452 cited

2004Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.275 cited

2005Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1)236 cited

Cited by

2014Outcomes in Cochrane Systematic Reviews Addressing Four Common Eye Conditions: An Evaluation of Completeness and Comparability120 cited
2017Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)113 cited
2017Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy108 cited
2015Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review46 cited
2018When to include clinical study reports and regulatory documents in systematic reviews44 cited
2018Challenges of identifying unpublished data from clinical trials: Getting the best out of clinical trials registers and other novel sources38 cited
2020Future of evidence ecosystem series: 2. current opportunities and need for better tools and methods36 cited
2016Statistical controversies in clinical research: comparison of primary outcomes in protocols, public clinical-trial registries and publications: the example of oncology trials31 cited
2016Most systematic reviews of adverse effects did not include unpublished data30 cited
2019Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey28 cited
2014Impact of Inclusion of Industry Trial Results Registries as an Information Source for Systematic Reviews20 cited
2021SPIRIT 2013 Bildirisi: Klinik Deneyler İçin Standart Protokol Maddelerinin Tanımlanması17 cited
2014Time to ensure that clinical trial appropriate results are actually published13 cited
2018Redefining the ‘E’ in EBM12 cited
2017Burn clinical trials: A systematic review of registration and publications9 cited