SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials
14 references·3 citing·48 second hop
A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials (2015)A guide to performing a peer review of ra…The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors (2015)The most important tasks for …Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials (2014)Why training and specializati…Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system (2014)Peer review for biomedical pu…Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study (2014)Impact of peer review on repo…Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide (2014)Better reporting of intervent…Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged…Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial (2011)Effect of using reporting gui…Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? (2010)Editorial Peer Reviewers' Rec…What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)What errors do peer reviewers…Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement (2008)Improving the reporting of pr…Clinical trial registration (2007)Clinical trial registrationClinical Trial Registration (2004)Clinical Trial RegistrationBetter Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement (2004)Better Reporting of Harms in …Effects of Editorial Peer Review (2002)Effects of Editorial Peer Rev…Peer Review Guidance for Evaluating the Narrative Review: Lessons Applied From the Systematic Review (2021)Peer Review Guidance for Eval…Les thérapies digitales : quels freins pour leur prise en charge ? (2021)Les thérapies digitales : que…Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers (2015)Peer review: tips from field …Reporting results of cancer treatment (1981)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (2007)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication (2015)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)Overburdening of peer reviewers: A multi‐stakeholder perspective on causes and effects (2021)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)The CARE Guidelines: Consensus-based Clinical Case Report Guideline Development (2013)Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015 (2016)Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research (2019)Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates (1988)Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine (1994)Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. (2005)Emerging trends in peer review—a survey (2015)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Responsible Conduct of Research (2022)Peer Review in 18th-Century Scientific Journalism (1990)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial (1999)Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: a systematic review (2007)The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals (2019)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria (2002)Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel (2011)Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability (2016)Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central (2016)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Establishing a new journal for systematic review products (2012)Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review (2014)Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement (2014)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016)CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (2016)CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document (2017)Patient-Important Outcomes in Registered Diabetes Trials (2008)Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network (2010)Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (2019)CONSORT-EHEALTH: Improving and Standardizing Evaluation Reports of Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions (2011)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2014Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide10,521 cited
  • 2008Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement1,811 cited
  • 2004Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement1,588 cited
  • 2004Clinical Trial Registration579 cited
  • 2002Effects of Editorial Peer Review347 cited
  • 2011Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial291 cited
  • 2008What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?226 cited
  • 2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals200 cited
  • 2010Editorial Peer Reviewers' Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care?177 cited
  • 2014Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system103 cited
  • 2014Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study103 cited
  • 2007Clinical trial registration98 cited
  • 2014Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials75 cited
  • 2015

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

The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors
62 cited

Cited by

  • 2021Peer Review Guidance for Evaluating the Narrative Review: Lessons Applied From the Systematic Review12 cited
  • 2015Peer review: tips from field experts for junior reviewers11 cited
  • 2021Les thérapies digitales : quels freins pour leur prise en charge ?1 cited