SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The reporting of blinding in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: where do we stand?
13 references·0 citing·35 second hop
The reporting of blinding in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: where do we stand? (2018)The reporting of blinding in orthodontic …Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955–2013 (2017)Randomized clinical trials in…Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study (2017)Evolution of poor reporting a…Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals (2015)Reporting quality of randomis…Randomized controlled trial: the gold standard or an unobtainable fallacy? (2015)Randomized controlled trial: …The Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics (2014)The Reporting Quality of Rand…Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors (2012)Observer bias in randomised c…Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed (2010)Reviews assessing the quality…In the dark The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials (2002)In the dark The reporting of …Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials (2001)Use of the CONSORT Statement …Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials (2001)Physician Interpretations and…Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Assessing the quality of cont…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasEmpirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasA method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial (1981)Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis (1992)Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals (1994)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Handbook of research on teaching (1986)Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1963)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts (2013)SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials (2013)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies (2001)Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (2003)Hawthorne effect reporting in orthodontic randomized controlled trials: truth or myth? Blessing or curse? (2017)Art Therapy for Psychosocial Problems in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Narrative Review on Art Therapeutic Means and Forms of Expression, Therapist Behavior, and Supposed Mechanisms of Change (2020)Randomized-controlled trials are methodologically inappropriate in adolescent transgender healthcare (2023)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals (2012)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Successes and failures in the control of infectious diseases in Brazil: social and environmental context, policies, interventions, and research needs (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi (2024)CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias7,306 cited
  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
  • 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials3,309 cited
  • 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials1,026 cited
  • 2012Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors488 cited
  • 2001Physician Interpretations and Textbook Definitions of Blinding Terminology in Randomized Controlled Trials262 cited
  • 2017Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study176 cited
  • 2002In the dark The reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials175 cited
  • 2015Randomized controlled trial: the gold standard or an unobtainable fallacy?124 cited
  • 2010Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed74 cited
  • 2014The Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics70 cited
  • 2017Randomized clinical trials in dentistry: Risks of bias, risks of random errors, reporting quality, and methodologic quality over the years 1955–201343 cited
  • 2015Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals39 cited

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

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.