SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Do Cochrane reviews provide useful information to guide policy and practice? The experience of the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group
12 references·0 citing·43 second hop
Do Cochrane reviews provide useful information to guide policy and practice? The experience of the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (2011)Do Cochrane reviews provide useful inform…Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: What's there and what should be (2010)Cochrane systematic reviews i…Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review (2010)Applicability and generalisab…Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making? (2009)Why are Cochrane hepato-bilia…An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist (2009)An international survey indic…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal* (2007)The quality of reports of cri…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews (2007)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned (2007)Empty systematic reviews: hid…Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: A systematic analysis (2006)Conclusiveness of the Cochran…Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study (2005)Assessment of methodological …Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998 (2001)Quality of Cochrane reviews: …Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation (2000)Systematic reviews and meta-a…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)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology – A systematic review (2009)The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing (2009)Twenty Years of Meta-Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery: Has Quality Kept Up with Quantity? (2010)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (2013)Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity (2017)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Diabetes Prevention Research (2012)Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration (2016)Assessing context suitability (generalizability, external validity, applicability or transferability) of findings in evidence syntheses in healthcare—An integrative review of methodological guidance (2020)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German (1997)Publication and related bias in meta-analysis (2000)High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (2017)Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions (2020)Mail and internet surveys : the tailored design method (2007)Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method (2007)Is compensation “bad for health”? A systematic meta-review (2010)Is there a solution to publication bias? Researchers call for changes in dissemination of clinical research results (2014)Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status (2019)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Mind-Body Medicine: State of the Science, Implications for Practice (2003)Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials (2009)Reading, writing and systematic review (2008)Text‐in‐context: a method for extracting findings in mixed‐methods mixed research synthesis studies (2012)Interventions for Secondary Traumatic Stress With Mental Health Workers (2014)Emotional intelligence in medicine: a systematic review through the context of the ACGME competencies (2010)Ítems de referencia para publicar Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: La Declaración PRISMA (2014)Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities (2020)Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: implications for evidence-based medicine. (2005)High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews (2005)Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four‐item checklist (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews891 cited
  • 2000Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation263 cited
  • 2005Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study239 cited
  • 2001Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998159 cited
  • 2007Empty systematic reviews: hidden perils and lessons learned115 cited
  • 2007The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal*112 cited
  • 2009An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist64 cited
  • 2010Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review53 cited
  • 2006Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: A systematic analysis29 cited
  • 2010Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: What's there and what should be26 cited
  • 2009Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?17 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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