SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews
4 references·4 citing·35 second hop
Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews (2016)Time to consider sharing data extracted f…Exploring the pragmatic and explanatory study design on outcomes of systematic reviews of public health interventions: a case study on obesity prevention trials (2014)Exploring the pragmatic and e…A Web-based archive of systematic review data (2012)A Web-based archive of system…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. D…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasMethodological standards for conducting and reporting meta-analyses: Ensuring the replicability of meta-analyses of pharmacist-led medication review (2021)Methodological standards for …Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews (2019)Reproducibility and replicabi…Editorial: Systematic review automation thematic series (2019)Editorial: Systematic review …Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms (2017)Increasing value and reducing…An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers (1977)Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines (2002)A simple and valid tool distinguished efficacy from effectiveness studies (2006)Reducing research waste and improving research impact (2015)A comparison of meta-analytic methods for synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials (2018)A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing (2021)An international registry of systematic-review protocols (2010)Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2013)The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration (2013)PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews (2014)Automating Risk of Bias Assessment for Clinical Trials (2015)MetaBUS as a vehicle for facilitating meta-analysis (2016)High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews (2005)Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews (2006)A case study of binary outcome data extraction across three systematic reviews of hip arthroplasty: errors and differences of selection (2013)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 nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews (2012)Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis (2020)A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing (2021)Replicability in the context of systematic reviews: A call for a framework with considerations regarding duplication, overlap, and intentionality (2021)Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry (2017)A question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies? (2019)Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis (2019)A Computational Approach for Objectively Derived Systematic Review Search Strategies (2020)Toxic effects of nanomaterials for health applications: How automation can support a systematic review of the literature? (2021)Evaluating the AI Tool “Elicit” as a Semi-Automated Second Reviewer for Data Extraction in Systematic Reviews: A Proof-of-Concept (2025)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)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)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
  • 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
  • 2012A Web-based archive of systematic review data66 cited
  • 2014Exploring the pragmatic and explanatory study design on outcomes of systematic reviews of public health interventions: a case study on obesity prevention trials47 cited

Cited by

  • 2019Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews27 cited
  • 2019Editorial: Systematic review automation thematic series27 cited
  • 2021Methodological standards for conducting and reporting meta-analyses: Ensuring the replicability of meta-analyses of pharmacist-led medication review16 cited
  • 2017Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms13 cited

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