SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in Cochrane and other systematic reviews
4 references·1 citing·22 second hop
Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ in Cochrane and other systematic reviews (2020)Claims of ‘no difference’ or ‘no effect’ …Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals (2019)Reporting and interpretation …Interpreting results and drawing conclusions (2019)Interpreting results and draw…RevManHAL: towards automatic text generation in systematic reviews (2017)RevManHAL: towards automatic …Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane reviews (2003)Survey of claims of no effect…Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children’s health: a methodological survey (2024)Systems for rating bodies of …A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis (2000)External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” (2005)GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness (2011)Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. (2017)Impact of viral epidemic outbreaks on mental health of healthcare workers: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis (2020)A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being (2021)Collective invention (1983)The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care (1993)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)Machine learning for semi-automated scoping reviews (2023)Transformative Automation: AI in Scientific Literature Reviews (2024)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Redefine statistical significance (2017)Scientists rise up against statistical significance (2019)A review of high impact journals found that misinterpretation of non-statistically significant results from randomized trials was common (2022)On the importance of precise language use (2024)Randomized controlled trials reporting patient-reported outcomes with no significant differences between study groups are potentially susceptible to unjustified conclusions—a systematic review (2024)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Pitfalls in systematic reviews (2006)Clinical recommendations of C ochrane reviews in three different fields of pediatrics (neonatology, neuropediatrics, and complementary and alternative medicine): A systematic analysis (2013)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2019Interpreting results and drawing conclusions595 cited
  • 2003Survey of claims of no effect in abstracts of Cochrane reviews57 cited
  • 2019Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals37 cited
  • 2017RevManHAL: towards automatic text generation in systematic reviews15 cited

Cited by

  • 2024Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children’s health: a methodological survey9 cited

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