SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses
16 references·0 citing·30 second hop
Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2019)Perspective on Systematic Medical Literat…Rethinking retractions (2018)Rethinking retractionsPreferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)Preferred Reporting Items for…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2013)Finding What Works in Health …Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals (2012)Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged…Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review (2010)Testing for the Presence of P…An international registry of systematic-review protocols (2010)An international registry of …Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey (2009)Science journal editors’ view…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…What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? (2008)What errors do peer reviewers…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality (2007)The Relationship of Previous …Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies (2007)Editorial peer review for imp…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts (1992)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009)PRISMA Statement (2010)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (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 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)Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews (2012)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)SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles (2019)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Scientific peer review (2011)What is open peer review? A systematic review (2017)Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: a systematic evidence map (2020)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.48,853 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement37,718 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,084 cited
  • 2018Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies3,255 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,499 cited
  • 2013Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews949 cited
  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2010An international registry of systematic-review protocols515 cited
  • 2007Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies316 cited
  • 2010Testing for the Presence of Positive-Outcome Bias in Peer Review248 cited
  • 2008What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?236 cited
  • 2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals206 cited
  • 2009Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey

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

155 cited
  • 2018Rethinking retractions149 cited
  • 2007The Relationship of Previous Training and Experience of Journal Peer Reviewers to Subsequent Review Quality139 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.