SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Aspectos básicos sobre la lectura de revisiones sistemáticas y la interpretación de meta-análisis
16 references·0 citing·33 second hop
Aspectos básicos sobre la lectura de revisiones sistemáticas y la interpretación de meta-análisis (2019)Aspectos básicos sobre la lectura de revi…What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)What kind of systematic revie…Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review (2018)Tools for assessing risk of r…Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: A tutorial (2018)Interpretation of subgroup an…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…ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessin…How to read a funnel plot in a meta-analysis (2015)How to read a funnel plot in …The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (N…The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research (2012)The benefits and challenges o…Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2012)Systematic Reviews and Meta-A…GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence (2011)GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating u…GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness (2011)GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating t…GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency (2011)GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating t…GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating t…GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011)GRADE guidelines 6. Rating th…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Bias in meta-analysis detecte…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” (2005)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)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)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)The cochrane database of systematic reviews (1996)Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package (2010)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)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)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder (2012)GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions (2019)Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide (2006)Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses (2010)New evidence pyramid (2016)GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test56,637 cited
  • 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions20,225 cited
  • 2014The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses17,633 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision2,681 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence1,335 cited
  • 2018What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences1,160 cited
  • 2012The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research565 cited
  • 2018Interpretation of subgroup analyses in systematic reviews: A tutorial561 cited
  • 2015

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

How to read a funnel plot in a meta-analysis
318 cited
  • 2018Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review278 cited
  • 2012Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses275 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.