References

• 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
• 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
• 1998The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.8,247 cited
• 1996Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients.6,899 cited
• 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
• 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
• 2003Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials4,799 cited
• 2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs3,561 cited
• 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
• 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
• 1998The Delphi List2,379 cited
• 2010Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research