References

• 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
• 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions20,225 cited
• 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?17,580 cited
• 2018The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers4,688 cited
• 2013Assessing baseline imbalance in randomised trials: implications for the Cochrane risk of bias tool273 cited
• 2011Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional study111 cited
• 2010Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research97 cited
• 2013Systematic Review of Blinding Assessment in Randomized Controlled Trials in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders 2000-201085 cited
• 2007The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study59 cited
• 2014A methodological review of recent meta-analyses has found significant heterogeneity in age between randomized groups36 cited
• 2014Important outcome predictors showed greater baseline heterogeneity than age in two systematic reviews17 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.