Citation map · Study

Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook

13 references·9 citing·40 second hop

this work references cited by second hop

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
2016A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials985 cited
2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
2012Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.668 cited
2006Bias in Clinical Intervention Research636 cited
2016Cochrane Methods 2016278 cited
2012Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs174 cited
2017Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study170 cited
2012PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis86 cited
2019Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability81 cited
2018In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance67 cited
2017Effect of standardized training on the reliability of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool: a prospective study62 cited
2019The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey

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

References

Cited by