SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Risk of Bias and Quality of Reporting in Colon and Rectal Cancer Systematic Reviews Cited by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines
16 references·0 citing·36 second hopsampled
Risk of Bias and Quality of Reporting in Colon and Rectal Cancer Systematic Reviews Cited by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines (2020)Risk of Bias and Quality of Reporting in …Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews (2019)Risk of bias assessments for …Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability (2019)Assessments of attrition bias…In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance (2018)In Cochrane reviews, risk of …Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity (2017)Methodological quality, compl…Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder (2017)Methodological quality of sys…Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review (2017)Evidence of selective reporti…Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)Rayyan—a web and mobile app f…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…From Protocols to Publications: A Study in Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials in Oncology (2015)From Protocols to Publication…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…Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: A systematic review (2008)Poor reporting of search stra…Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Empirical Evidence for Select…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 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis (2007)Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry (2008)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)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 healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity (2017)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist (2020)MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies (2021)Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals (1994)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials (2016)Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook (2019)The judgement of biases included in the category “other bias” in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey (2019)Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study (2022)Bias in Clinical Intervention Research (2006)Cochrane Methods 2016 (2016)Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (2020)Serious game-based learning and learning by making games: Types of game-based pedagogies and student gaming hours impact students' science learning outcomes (2024)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review (2019)An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews (2021)Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review (2021)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)
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 Statement.44,857 cited
  • 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement37,549 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,189 cited
  • 2016Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews25,980 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials1,845 cited
  • 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
  • 2019Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability81 cited
  • 2018In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance67 cited
  • 2015From Protocols to Publications: A Study in Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials in Oncology59 cited
  • 2017Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review54 cited
  • 2019Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews

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

48 cited
  • 2008Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: A systematic review38 cited
  • 2017Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity35 cited
  • 2017Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder26 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.