Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

A systematic review reveals that the credibility of subgroup claims in low back pain trials was low

10 references·1 citing·41 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data81,000 cited
2015Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 20136,416 cited
2003Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials4,799 cited
2009The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study2,199 cited
2010Is a subgroup effect believable? Updating criteria to evaluate the credibility of subgroup analyses805 cited
2014How to Use a Subgroup Analysis549 cited
2012Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review395 cited
2010There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials360 cited
2008Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols201 cited
2009Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials60 cited

Cited by

2019A systematic survey identified 36 criteria for assessing effect modification claims in randomized trials or meta-analyses24 cited

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