Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

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

Why do authors derive new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in the presence of existing rules? A mixed methods study

8 references·3 citing·46 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2009Qualitative methods for health research4,611 cited
2015Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): The TRIPOD Statement3,424 cited
2011A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials154 cited
2007Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report149 cited
2016Towards evidence based research138 cited
2014Accumulating Research: A Systematic Account of How Cumulative Meta-Analyses Would Have Provided Knowledge, Improved Health, Reduced Harm and Saved Resources123 cited
2004Doing New Research? Don't Forget the Old103 cited
2007Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report58 cited

Cited by

2018Predictors for independent external validation of cardiovascular risk clinical prediction rules: Cox proportional hazards regression analyses12 cited
2022A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research11 cited
2021Design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules are suboptimal: a systematic review5 cited

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