SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials of Mental Health Interventions
8 references·8 citing·48 second hop
Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials of Mental Health Interventions (2004)Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials of …The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement…Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey (2001)Reporting of adverse drug rea…Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials (2001)Incomplete evidence: the inad…Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. (2001)Completeness of safety report…Reporting of Adverse Effects in Clinical Trials Should Be Improved (1999)Reporting of Adverse Effects …Reporting of safety data from randomised trials (1998)Reporting of safety data from…An evidence based approach to individualising treatment (1995)An evidence based approach to…Reporting results of cancer treatment (1981)Reporting results of cancer t…Reporting of harms in clinical trials of esketamine in depression: a systematic review (2023)Reporting of harms in clinica…Inverse publication reporting bias favouring null, negative results (2023)Inverse publication reporting…Adverse event methods were heterogeneous and insufficiently reported in randomized trials on persistent depressive disorder (2015)Adverse event methods were he…Failure or success of search strategies to identify adverse effects of medical devices: a feasibility study using a systematic review (2014)Failure or success of search …Failure or success of electronic search strategies to identify adverse effects data (2012)Failure or success of electro…Perfect Study, Poor Evidence: Interpretation of Biases Preceding Study Design (2008)Perfect Study, Poor Evidence:…Meta-analysis in public health: potentials and problems (2006)Meta-analysis in public healt…Reporting of Harm in Randomized, Controlled Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Rheumatic Disease (2005)Reporting of Harm in Randomiz…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Assess Treatment Harms (2005)Adherence to CONSORT Adverse Event Reporting Guidelines in Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating Systemic Cancer Therapy: A Systematic Review (2013)Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement (1996)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing (2009)A review of safety, side-effects and subjective reactions to intranasal oxytocin in human research (2011)Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension (2013)Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction (1992)Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (1999)Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review (2010)PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews (2016)Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions (2017)QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN THE REVIEW OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC LITERATURE1 (1987)An Assessment of Clinically Useful Measures of the Consequences of Treatment (1988)Meta-analysis: State-of-the-Science (1992)A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis (2002)Assessing the quality of research (2004)Assessing and presenting summaries of evidence in Cochrane Reviews (2013)Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons (2004)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Research waste‐related editorial policies of leading dental journals: Situation 2018 (2019)Implications of the open science era for educational psychology research syntheses (2021)Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review (2024)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond (2004)Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Therapeutic Devices and Procedures (2005)The quality of safety reporting in trials is still suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals (2010)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Extended difficulties following the use of psychedelic drugs: A mixed methods study (2023)History repeating: guidelines to address common problems in psychedelic science (2023)Balancing benefits and harms in health care (2003)Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2006)Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2008)Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement (2004)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1981Reporting results of cancer treatment7,798 cited
  • 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration3,828 cited
  • 2001Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas.564 cited
  • 1995An evidence based approach to individualising treatment389 cited
  • 1999Reporting of Adverse Effects in Clinical Trials Should Be Improved167 cited
  • 2001Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey128 cited
  • 2001Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials110 cited
  • 1998Reporting of safety data from randomised trials97 cited

Cited by

  • 2008Perfect Study, Poor Evidence: Interpretation of Biases Preceding Study Design72 cited
  • 2023Reporting of harms in clinical trials of esketamine in depression: a systematic review50 cited
  • 2005Reporting of Harm in Randomized, Controlled Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Rheumatic Disease49 cited
  • 2015Adverse event methods were heterogeneous and insufficiently reported in randomized trials on persistent depressive disorder45 cited
  • 2006Meta-analysis in public health: potentials and problems18 cited
  • 2012Failure or success of electronic search strategies to identify adverse effects data

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

16 cited
  • 2023Inverse publication reporting bias favouring null, negative results14 cited
  • 2014Failure or success of search strategies to identify adverse effects of medical devices: a feasibility study using a systematic review11 cited