SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine
16 references·0 citing·45 second hop
Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine (2019)Characteristics, trend, and methodologica…Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure (2018)Are systematic reviews and me…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better? (2016)Resuming the discussion of AM…Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part II. Statistical Methods of Meta-Analysis (2015)Systematic Review and Meta-An…Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part I. General Guidance and Tips (2015)Systematic Review and Meta-An…Pitfalls of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Imaging Research (2015)Pitfalls of Systematic Review…Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties (2014)Systematic review found AMSTA…Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature (2013)Reporting and Methodological …Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement? (2013)Association of Study Quality …Characteristics and Trends of Radiology Research: A Survey of Original Articles Published inAJRandRadiologybetween 2001 and 2010 (2012)Characteristics and Trends of…QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for …Quality Control in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (2010)Quality Control in Systematic…PRISMA Statement (2010)PRISMA StatementFrom Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance (2010)From Systematic Reviews to Cl…From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~! (2010)From Systematic Reviews to Cl…The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal* (2007)The quality of reports of cri…Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)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)Does specialized psychological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness (2019)A Systematic Review of Corporal Punishment in Schools: Global Prevalence and Correlates (2020)The determinants of banks' credit risk: Review of the literature and future research agenda (2020)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines (2016)Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies (2018)Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2—risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence (2018)Analysing and Presenting Results (2010)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Successful Publication of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy (2016)Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology (2022)Utility of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire to Identify Developmental Delay in Children Aged 12 to 60 Months (2022)The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed (2005)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review (2017)Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions (2017)Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? – A systematic review of reviews: an update (2018)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews (2005)A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Test of Memory Malingering in adults: Two decades of deception detection (2019)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews (2007)Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study (2017)Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality (2017)Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews (2021)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (2008)Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research (2017)Meta-analyses of flipped classroom studies: A review of methodology (2021)PRISMA Statement (2010)Is YouTube a reliable source of health-related information? A systematic review (2022)Transitioning green finance from theory to practice for renewable energy development (2022)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,163 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2010PRISMA Statement627 cited
  • 2015Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part II. Statistical Methods of Meta-Analysis476 cited
  • 2015Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Studies Evaluating Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Practical Review for Clinical Researchers-Part I. General Guidance and Tips330 cited
  • 2010From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~!329 cited
  • 2010Quality Control in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses324 cited
  • 2010From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance184 cited
  • 2014Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties161 cited
  • 2013Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement?146 cited
  • 2013Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature112 cited

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

2007
The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal*
112 cited
  • 2015Pitfalls of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Imaging Research99 cited
  • 2012Characteristics and Trends of Radiology Research: A Survey of Original Articles Published inAJRandRadiologybetween 2001 and 201089 cited
  • 2018Are systematic reviews and meta-analyses still useful research? We are not sure88 cited
  • 2016Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?80 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.