SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO
14 references·0 citing·36 second hopsampled
The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO (2019)The fate of urological systematic reviews…Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting (2018)Registration of systematic re…Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality (2018)Registration in the internati…Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It’s time to fight back! (2017)Zombie reviews taking over th…Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry (2017)Analysis of the time and work…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…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality (2016)The landscape of systematic r…Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature from 1998 to 2012 (2015)Methodological Quality of Sys…How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO (2014)How to reduce unnecessary dup…The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews (2012)The nuts and bolts of PROSPER…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)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)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)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)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)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)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Revisões da literatura científica: tipos, métodos e aplicações em enfermagem (2018)Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review (2020)Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review (2020)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis (2013)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)Interrater Reliability in Systematic Review Methodology: Exploring Variation in Coder Decision-Making (2018)Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis (2019)A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study (2020)Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation (2020)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)Where to prospectively register a systematic review (2022)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.44,857 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews1,430 cited
  • 2017Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry733 cited
  • 2018Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting508 cited
  • 2018Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality388 cited
  • 2014How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO113 cited
  • 2016The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality35 cited
  • 2015Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature from 1998 to 2012

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

24 cited
  • 2017Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It’s time to fight back!22 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.