this work references cited by second hopReferences
- 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
- 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
- 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
- 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False10,471 cited
- 1998The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.8,247 cited
- 2005Why Most Published Research Findings Are False4,702 cited
- 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
- 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials3,309 cited
- 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
- 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence2,204 cited
- 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
- 1994Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews1,677 cited
- 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
- 1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists
Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work