SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It’s time to fight back!
10 references·4 citing·42 second hop
Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It’s time to fight back! (2017)Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO s…Trusting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: all that glitters is not gold! (2016)Trusting systematic reviews a…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic (2015)Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid!…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…The importance of PROSPERO to the National Institute for Health Research (2012)The importance of PROSPERO to…Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO (2012)Registration of systematic re…An international registry of systematic-review protocols (2010)An international registry of …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…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain (2023)Characteristics, completion a…Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Relating to Performance of All‐Ceramic Implant Abutments, Frameworks, and Restorations (2020)Methodological Quality of Sys…Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey (2020)Inconsistent views among syst…The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO (2019)The fate of urological system…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2010)Core outcome sets in women's and newborn health: a systematic review (2017)Systematic Review: Anxiety in Children and Adolescents With Chronic Medical Conditions (2019)Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers (2020)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Avoidable Waste in the Production and Reporting of Research Evidence (2009)Cognitive remediation in schizophrenia: A methodological appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2016)Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity (2017)Vibration of effects from diverse inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical choices: 9216 different ways to perform an indirect comparison meta-analysis (2019)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)Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense (2012)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting (2018)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines (2016)Gender, power, and violence: A systematic review of measures and their association with male perpetration of IPV (2018)Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process (2021)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature (2013)Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 1: assessing the risk of bias in outcomes included in systematic reviews (2019)Identifying the ‘incredible’! Part 2: Spot the difference - a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review (2019)Questions and answers about conducting systematic reviews in sport and exercise psychology (2020)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)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)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration28,094 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,189 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration5,525 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2010An international registry of systematic-review protocols513 cited
  • 2012Registration of systematic reviews: PROSPERO172 cited
  • 2015Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic166 cited
  • 2012The importance of PROSPERO to the National Institute for Health Research82 cited
  • 2016Trusting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: all that glitters is not gold!56 cited

Cited by

  • 2020Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey13 cited
  • 2020Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Relating to Performance of All‐Ceramic Implant Abutments, Frameworks, and Restorations9 cited
  • 2023Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain

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

8 cited
  • 2019The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO8 cited