Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Methodological and Ethical Quality of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Gastrointestinal Surgery

16 references·8 citing·32 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials8,873 cited
1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement3,337 cited
1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials3,126 cited
2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials2,754 cited
2001The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials2,545 cited
2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
2008Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration2,290 cited
2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials1,026 cited
2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review873 cited
2002Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions762 cited
1996The CONSORT Statement

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

736 cited

1996Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement610 cited

1994Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals512 cited

2010The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed503 cited

Cited by

2012A Note on the Jadad Score as an Efficient Tool for Measuring Trial Quality29 cited
2017Journal impact factor and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: an empirical study21 cited
2014Technological impact factor: An indicator to measure the impact of academic publications on practical innovation17 cited
2016Quality analysis of randomized controlled trials in the International Journal of Impotence Research: quality assessment and relevant clinical impact12 cited
2022Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Publications in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Research Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database10 cited
2017Quality of randomized controlled trials published in the International Urogynecology Journal 2007–20169 cited
2022Critically Appraising the Quality of Reporting of American College of Surgeons TQIP Studies in the Era of Large Data Research8 cited
2014Analysis of randomized controlled trials in Rheumatology International from 1981 to 2012: methodological assessment7 cited