Citation map · Study

Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS

16 references·5 citing·48 second hopsampled

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
2020Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better?1,647 cited
2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
2018Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality388 cited
2014Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials124 cited
2018Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies118 cited
2015Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor109 cited
2012Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?95 cited
2018Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability94 cited
2017The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity

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

References

Cited by