SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics
16 references·5 citing·34 second hop
Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics (2018)Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochran…Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity (2017)Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 …The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2012)Predicting the extent of hete…Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature (2012)Investigating clinical hetero…GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency (2011)GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating t…Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Systematic reviews: CRD's gui…Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead (2008)Undue reliance on I 2 in asse…Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified (2008)Commentary: Heterogeneity in …Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index? (2006)Assessing heterogeneity in me…Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Measuring inconsistency in me…Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in Context. (2002)Systematic Reviews in Health …Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis (2002)Quantifying heterogeneity in …Meta‒Analysis in Stata™ (2001)Meta‒Analysis in Stata™Approaches to heterogeneity in meta‐analysis (2001)Approaches to heterogeneity i…Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of Evidence (1997)Systematic Reviews: Critical …Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews (1997)Quantitative Synthesis in Sys…Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study (2024)Language bias in orthodontic …Publication bias in randomized controlled trials in dentistry. What factors affect statistical significance of outcomes? (2022)Publication bias in randomize…Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020 (2021)Reporting, interpretation, an…Prediction intervals should be included in meta‐analyses published in dentistry (2021)Prediction intervals should b…Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting (2019)Systematic reviews in orthodo…Case Study Research: Design and Methods (1984)The theory of planned behavior (1991)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews (2014)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1988)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. (2002)The case of the misleading funnel plot (2006)The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey (2007)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments (1954)Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis (2001)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)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)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2012)The heterogeneity statistic I2 can be biased in small meta-analyses (2015)Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. (2017)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)Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package (2010)El Cuestionario de Salud SF-36 español: una década de experiencia y nuevos desarrollos (2005)Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta‐analytical methods with rare events (2006)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta‐Essentials : A free and simple tool for meta‐analysis (2017)Global prevalence of gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2003Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses63,086 cited
  • 2002Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis36,730 cited
  • 2006Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?4,245 cited
  • 2010Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care3,245 cited
  • 1997Quantitative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews2,515 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
  • 2017Basics of meta‐analysis: I 2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity1,841 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2002Systematic Reviews in Health Care. Meta-analysis in Context.1,363 cited
  • 2008Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead1,286 cited
  • 2008Commentary: Heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be expected and appropriately quantified992 cited
  • 2012Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews837 cited
  • 2001Approaches to heterogeneity in meta‐analysis469 cited
  • 2001Meta‒Analysis in Stata™303 cited
  • 1997Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of Evidence

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

262 cited
  • 2012Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature222 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2019Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting34 cited
    • 2021Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 202026 cited
    • 2021Prediction intervals should be included in meta‐analyses published in dentistry12 cited
    • 2022Publication bias in randomized controlled trials in dentistry. What factors affect statistical significance of outcomes?12 cited
    • 2024Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study11 cited