References

• 2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence8,270 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision2,681 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias1,817 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence1,335 cited
• 2015Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients877 cited
• 2013Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions248 cited
• 2016Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments175 cited
• 2015Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic166 cited
• 2016How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards95 cited
• 2012Uncertainties in baseline risk estimates and confidence in treatment effects56 cited