SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
“Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
12 references·1 citing·42 second hop
“Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (2012)“Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses” in…Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability Testing of Quality Assessment Instruments (2012)Validity and Inter-Rater Reli…GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency (2011)GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating t…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for repo…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 Repo…Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead (2008)Undue reliance on I 2 in asse…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Measuring inconsistency in me…Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. (2002)Systems to rate the strength …Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Meta-analysis of Observationa…Can meta-analyses be trusted? (1991)Can meta-analyses be trusted?A general parametric approach to the meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials (1991)A general parametric approach…Guidelines for reading literature reviews. (1988)Guidelines for reading litera…Quality of meta‐analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review (2016)Quality of meta‐analyses in m…Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Support (2003)Cultural Competence (2005)Bulimia nervosa treatment: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (2007)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)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)A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial (1981)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)The Medical Review Article: State of the Science (1987)How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. (1992)Qualitative Research: Rigour and qualitative research (1995)Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. (2015)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1988)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses (2010)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2012)The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses (2015)Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. (2017)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments (1954)Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis (2001)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)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 PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1985)Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders (1997)A refined method for the meta‐analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome (2001)2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group (2015)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses63,086 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration28,094 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting20,612 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration17,627 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
  • 2008Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead1,286 cited
  • 2002Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence.880 cited
  • 1991A general parametric approach to the meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials750 cited
  • 1988Guidelines for reading literature reviews.492 cited
  • 1991Can meta-analyses be trusted?489 cited
  • 2012Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability Testing of Quality Assessment Instruments159 cited

Cited by

  • 2016Quality of meta‐analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review20 cited

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