SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of antidepressants effect on low back pain using updated AMSTAR
15 references·0 citing·34 second hop
A methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of antidepressants effect on low back pain using updated AMSTAR (2020)A methodological quality assessment of sy…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…2015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group (2015)2015 Updated Method Guideline…Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly. (2013)Systematic reviews explained:…2009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group (2009)2009 Updated Method Guideline…External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) (2007)External Validation of a Meas…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group (2003)Updated Method Guidelines for…Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine (2002)Assessing the quality of repo…On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions (2001)On the bias produced by quali…Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis (2001)Investigating and dealing wit…Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Bias in meta-analysis detecte…Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)Operating Characteristics of …Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1984, xiii+191 pp (1986)Summing Up: The Science of Re…Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide (2014)The PEDro scale had acceptably high convergent validity, construct validity, and interrater reliability in evaluating methodological quality of pharmaceutical trials (2017)Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance (2020)Understanding a Player’s Decision-Making Process in Team Sports: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence (2021)Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research (1987)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results (1992)Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package (2010)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review (2007)The Pittsburgh sleep quality index as a screening tool for sleep dysfunction in clinical and non-clinical samples: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2015)Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis (2000)Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis (2001)Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide (2006)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (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)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist (2011)YOGA FOR DEPRESSION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS (2013)A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus (2014)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test56,657 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,419 cited
  • 1994Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias16,951 cited
  • 2019Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions14,995 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,856 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2001Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis2,229 cited
  • 2003Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group2,184 cited
  • 20092009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group1,663 cited
  • 20152015 Updated Method Guideline for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back and Neck Group707 cited
  • 2007External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)569 cited
  • 2001On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions359 cited
  • 1986Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1984, xiii+191 pp136 cited

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

  • 2013Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly.116 cited
  • 2002Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine81 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.