SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
9 references·0 citing·45 second hop
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview (2020)Concordance between systematic reviews of…When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist (2020)When to replicate systematic …Scratching beneath 'The Scratching Case': systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the back door for evidence-based medicine (2014)Scratching beneath 'The Scrat…Publish or perish: Where are we heading? (2014)Publish or perish: Where are …Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions (2014)Bias due to selective inclusi…A Case Study of Discordant Overlapping Meta-Analyses: Vitamin D Supplements and Fracture (2014)A Case Study of Discordant Ov…(Meta)analyze this: Systematic reviews might lose credibility (2012)(Meta)analyze this: Systemati…The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process? (2008)The interpretation of systema…How Objective are Systematic Reviews? Differences between Reviews on Complementary Medicine (2003)How Objective are Systematic …A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. (1997)A guide to interpreting disco…We must stop the avalanche of low-quality research (2010)Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure (2018)Reproducible and replicable pain research: a critical review (2018)The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials (2019)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)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)Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews? (2015)The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar (2017)How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm (2022)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Apparently conclusive meta-analyses on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive—a meta-epidemiological study (2019)When do we need to do meta-analysis!!! (2023)Enhancing systematic literature review adapting ‘double diamond approach’ (2024)The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1984)The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (1985)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing (2009)Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis for a Binary Outcome: One-Stage or Two-Stage? (2013)Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies (2013)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts (1992)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)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 statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations (2008)The good, the bad and the ugly: meta-analyses (2014)Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial scratching: assessment of methodological issues (2019)Need for Training in Research Methodology Prior to Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and the Effectiveness of an Online Training Program: The Global Andrology Forum Model (2023)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica (2007)Meta‐research: The art of getting it wrong (2010)ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making (2020)Reproducibility of real-world evidence studies using clinical practice data to inform regulatory and coverage decisions (2022)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1997A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.394 cited
  • 2014Publish or perish: Where are we heading?386 cited
  • 2014Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions282 cited
  • 2003How Objective are Systematic Reviews? Differences between Reviews on Complementary Medicine243 cited
  • 2020When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist110 cited
  • 2008The interpretation of systematic reviews with meta-analyses: an objective or subjective process?67 cited
  • 2014Scratching beneath 'The Scratching Case': systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the back door for evidence-based medicine67 cited
  • 2014A Case Study of Discordant Overlapping Meta-Analyses: Vitamin D Supplements and Fracture60 cited
  • 2012(Meta)analyze this: Systematic reviews might lose credibility34 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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