SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID‐19: An analysis of PROSPERO records
9 references·3 citing·39 second hop
The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID‐19: An analysis of PROSPERO records (2021)The mass production of systematic reviews…Waste in covid-19 research (2020)Waste in covid-19 researchLessons from COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first living search strategy and out of date scientific publishing and indexing industry (2020)Lessons from COVID-19 to futu…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study (2019)Discrepancies in meta-analyse…A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study (2016)A third of systematic reviews…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO (2014)How to reduce unnecessary dup…The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews (2012)The nuts and bolts of PROSPER…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Reports of randomised control trials should begin and conclude with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant trials: a 25-year audit of the quality of trial reports (2024)Reports of randomised control…Exploring decision-makers’ challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare (2024)Exploring decision-makers’ ch…Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study (2022)Three out of four published s…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3) (2016)Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study (2017)A systematic review on mediators between adversity and psychosis: potential targets for treatment (2020)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)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)AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Orthopaedic Surgery Journals (2018)Future of evidence ecosystem series: 1. Introduction Evidence synthesis ecosystem needs dramatic change (2020)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Umbrella reviews: A new tool to synthesize scientific evidence in surgery (2021)Assessing and visualizing fragility of clinical results with binary outcomes in R using the fragility package (2022)Assessing the robustness of results from clinical trials and meta-analyses with the fragility index (2022)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study (2019)Searching for and selecting studies (2019)Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID ‐19: A meta‐epidemiological study (2021)Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base (2021)The NICE search filters for treating and managing COVID-19: validation in MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) (2024)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)The mental health impact of the covid-19 pandemic on healthcare workers, and interventions to help them: A rapid systematic review (2020)Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making (2021)Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts (2023)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Conceptual and Technical Challenges in Network Meta-analysis (2013)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,189 cited
  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2020Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,670 cited
  • 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews1,430 cited
  • 2020Waste in covid-19 research330 cited
  • 2014How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO113 cited
  • 2016A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study73 cited
  • 2019Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study41 cited
  • 2020Lessons from COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first living search strategy and out of date scientific publishing and indexing industry22 cited

Cited by

  • 2022Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study14 cited
  • 2024Reports of randomised control trials should begin and conclude with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant trials: a 25-year audit of the quality of trial reports11 cited
  • 2024Exploring decision-makers’ challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare9 cited

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