SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews
16 references·0 citing·34 second hop
Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews (2017)Interventional Radiology Clinical Practic…Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement (2016)Limitations of A Measurement …ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties (2014)Systematic review found AMSTA…Basic statistical reporting for articles published in Biomedical Journals: The “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature” or the SAMPL Guidelines (2014)Basic statistical reporting f…Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly. (2013)Systematic reviews explained:…GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating t…Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2011)Evaluation of methodology and…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…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…Systematic Reviews: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (2009)Systematic Reviews: The Good,…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking? (2009)How Can We Support the Use of…AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)AMSTAR is a reliable and vali…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions (2011)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 CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)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)Declining racial and ethnic representation in clinical academic medicine: A longitudinal study of 16 US medical specialties (2018)Guidelines for Reporting of Statistics for Clinical Research in Urology (2018)Bayesian Analysis Reporting Guidelines (2021)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)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)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency (2011)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.44,857 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration28,094 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration10,571 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence8,270 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
  • 2014Basic statistical reporting for articles published in Biomedical Journals: The “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature” or the SAMPL Guidelines657 cited
  • 2009How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking?246 cited
  • 2009Systematic Reviews: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly169 cited
  • 2014Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties

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

161 cited
  • 2013Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly.116 cited
  • 2016Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement93 cited
  • 2011Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics68 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.