SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree
16 references·0 citing·34 second hop
Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree (2016)Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepan…Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting (2010)Meta-analysis of individual p…AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)AMSTAR is a reliable and vali…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” (2005)External validity of randomis…Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Measuring inconsistency in me…Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)Quantifying heterogeneity in …How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? (2002)How should meta‐regression an…Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses (2001)Reported Methodologic Quality…Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis (2001)Investigating and dealing wit…Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequences (2000)Publication bias in meta-anal…Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures (1997)Meta-analysis: Principles and…Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Bias in meta-analysis detecte…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 BiasSystematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)Systematic Reviews: Rationale…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)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration (2008)The Role of Behavioral Science Theory in Development and Implementation of Public Health Interventions (2010)CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2011)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)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 Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments (1954)Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis (2001)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 reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package (2010)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. (1986)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1988)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis (2010)Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses (2011)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)The cochrane database of systematic reviews (1996)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade (2006)The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study (2009)Mortality Rates in Patients With Anorexia Nervosa and Other Eating Disorders (2011)A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency (2014)Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range (2014)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

  • 2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses63,086 cited
  • 1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test56,637 cited
  • 2002Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis36,730 cited
  • 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
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration5,525 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2002How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?3,021 cited
  • 2005External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”2,541 cited
  • 1997Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures2,413 cited
  • 2001Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses2,285 cited
  • 2001Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis2,229 cited
  • 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
  • 2010Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting

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

1,701 cited
  • 1994Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews1,677 cited
  • 2000Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequences1,293 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.