References

• 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
• 2014Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis1,597 cited
• 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
• 2016New evidence pyramid1,382 cited
• 2000Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?811 cited
• 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
• 1993The Science of Reviewing Researcha473 cited
• 2006Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews462 cited
• 2002Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records340 cited
• 2017Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews325 cited
• 2014Indirect Treatment Comparison/Network Meta-Analysis Study Questionnaire to Assess Relevance and Credibility to Inform Health Care Decision Making: An ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force Report318 cited
• 1997Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of Evidence262 cited
• 2017