Citation map · Study

Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta‐epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case

16 references·11 citing·30 second hop

this work references cited by second hop

References

2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
2019Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions14,763 cited
1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
2001Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses2,285 cited
2003How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study1,181 cited
2012Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials1,047 cited
2012Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.668 cited
2013Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study543 cited
2013Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors525 cited
2017Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research514 cited
2012Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors

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