Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality

16 references·13 citing·46 second hopsampled

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

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
2007External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)569 cited
2013Citation Analysis May Severely Underestimate the Impact of Clinical Research as Compared to Basic Research237 cited
2016Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines137 cited
2014Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality112 cited
2015Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor109 cited
2012Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?95 cited
2016Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement93 cited
2013Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis83 cited
2014Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies?62 cited
2014Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature

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

60 cited

2016Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management53 cited

2011Methodological Concerns and Quality Appraisal of Contemporary Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Pediatric Urology50 cited

2015Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool50 cited

Cited by

2022Adverse childhood experiences: A scoping review of measures and methods77 cited
2021Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed38 cited
2017Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool37 cited
2018The differential impact of scientific quality, bibliometric factors, and social media activity on the influence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses about psoriasis22 cited
2018Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol21 cited
2019Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review21 cited
2017Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study19 cited
2018Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri‐implant diseases with two methodological tools18 cited
2020Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review17 cited
2017Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis16 cited
2023Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols10 cited
2017Bibliometric Analysis of Journals in the Field of Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Pituitary Adenomas10 cited
2020Systematic Reviews: Characteristics and Impact8 cited