SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Systematic Reviews in Craniofacial Trauma—Strengths and Weaknesses
13 references·0 citing·48 second hop
Systematic Reviews in Craniofacial Trauma—Strengths and Weaknesses (2015)Systematic Reviews in Craniofacial Trauma…The Quality of Systematic Reviews in Hand Surgery (2013)The Quality of Systematic Rev…Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions (2011)Methodology in conducting a s…Methodological Concerns and Quality Appraisal of Contemporary Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Pediatric Urology (2011)Methodological Concerns and Q…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…Quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies. (2010)Quality of systematic reviews…Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature From 1998 to 2008 (2010)Assessment of the Methodologi…Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology – A systematic review (2009)Quality of systematic reviews…AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)AMSTAR is a reliable and vali…External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) (2007)External Validation of a Meas…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews (2006)Single data extraction genera…Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (2006)Does the CONSORT checklist im…Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)Systematic Reviews: Rationale…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)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)Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research (1976)Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research (1987)A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts (1992)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review (2003)Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews (2008)A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. (1971)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews (2018)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)Reviewing measures of outcome: reliability of data extraction (2004)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach (2012)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)Risks of all-cause and suicide mortality in mental disorders: a meta-review (2014)Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2014)The cochrane database of systematic reviews (1996)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness (2017)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)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)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)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)Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Home Telemonitoring Interventions for Patients With Chronic Diseases: A Critical Assessment of Their Methodological Quality (2013)Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas em periódicos de psicologia brasileiros (2014)Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (2017)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. (1996)Meta-analysis as Evidence (2014)Methodological Standards for Meta-Analyses and Qualitative Systematic Reviews of Cardiac Prevention and Treatment Studies: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2017)Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews (2021)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
  • 1994Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews1,678 cited
  • 2011Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions1,230 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review873 cited
  • 2007External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)569 cited
  • 2006Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews470 cited
  • 2009Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology – A systematic review78 cited
  • 2010Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature From 1998 to 200855 cited
  • 2011Methodological Concerns and Quality Appraisal of Contemporary Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Pediatric Urology50 cited
  • 2013The Quality of Systematic Reviews in Hand Surgery24 cited
  • 2010Quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies.15 cited

Cited by

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

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.