SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review
16 references·1 citing·42 second hop
Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review (2021)Do not make clinical decisions based on a…‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)‘Spin’ in published biomedica…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity (2016)A new classification of spin …ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study (2014)The association between exagg…Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial (2014)Impact of Spin in the Abstrac…Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review (2013)Systematic Review of the Empi…PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts (2013)PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporti…Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer (2013)Bias in reporting of end poin…Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study (2012)Misrepresentation of Randomiz…Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study (2012)Influence of medical journal …Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals (2012)Assessment of adherence to th…The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's …Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Reporting and Interpretation …Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (2010)Preferred reporting items for…CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration (2008)CONSORT for Reporting Randomi…Letter to the Editor – Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews (2021)Letter to the Editor – Not ev…The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2008)Comparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials (2009)The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development (2013)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis (2005)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2020)The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity (2020)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)La extensión de la declaración PRISMA para revisiones sistemáticas que incorporan metaanálisis en red: PRISMA-NMA (2016)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008)Does Cultural Competency Training of Health Professionals Improve Patient Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Proposed Algorithm for Future Research (2010)Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? (2010)Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015 (2016)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis (2015)Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation (2002)Misinformation in and about science (2021)Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)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)Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity (2017)MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies (2021)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
  • 2010Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement12,147 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2013Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review1,126 cited
  • 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes828 cited
  • 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
  • 2013PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts706 cited
  • 2008CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration670 cited
  • 2014The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study489 cited
  • 2014Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial366 cited
  • 2017‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review314 cited
  • 2012Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study293 cited
  • 2016

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

A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity
224 cited
  • 2012Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals140 cited
  • 2012Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study136 cited
  • 2013Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer118 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2021Letter to the Editor – Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews19 cited