SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation
16 references·0 citing·47 second hop
Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation (2021)Knowledge syntheses in medical education:…The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis (2020)The role of geographic bias i…Are women publishing less during the pandemic? Here’s what the data say (2020)Are women publishing less dur…Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines (2019)Literature review as a resear…How Often Do Systematic Reviews Exclude Articles Not Published in English? (2019)How Often Do Systematic Revie…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study (2018)The prevalence of and factors…The gendered system of academic publishing (2018)The gendered system of academ…The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? (2018)The gender gap in science: Ho…Gender Differences in the Authorship of Original Research in Pediatric Journals, 2001-2016 (2017)Gender Differences in the Aut…Is Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender Differences in Contributorship (2016)Is Science Built on the Shoul…Inadequate Progress for Women in Academic Medicine: Findings from the National Faculty Study (2015)Inadequate Progress for Women…Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach (2012)Evidence summaries: the evolu…Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach (2012)Conducting systematic reviews…Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies (2011)Authorship and Responsibility…The art and science of knowledge synthesis (2010)The art and science of knowle…Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias? (1995)Selecting the language of the…The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)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)A systematic review of methods for studying consumer health YouTube videos, with implications for systematic reviews (2013)RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT (2014)Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews (2015)Relation of Family Responsibilities and Gender to the Productivity and Career Satisfaction of Medical Faculty (1998)Is There Still a Glass Ceiling for Women in Academic Surgery? (2011)Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers (2012)Faculty Service Loads and Gender: Are Women Taking Care of the Academic Family? (2017)Academic career development: A review and research agenda (2018)Exploratory Research (2020)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Publication bias and clinical trials (1987)Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews (1997)Socioeconomic Inequalities in Depression: A Meta-Analysis (2003)The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews (2003)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Educational Technologies in Problem-Based Learning in Health Sciences Education: A Systematic Review (2014)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)Spiritual Care Training Provided to Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review (2015)A systematic review of the published literature on team-based learning in health professions education (2017)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)A scoping review of rapid review methods (2015)Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews (2020)Occurrence, prevention, and management of the psychological effects of emerging virus outbreaks on healthcare workers: rapid review and meta-analysis (2020)The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor (2006)Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students (2012)Bibliometrics: Global gender disparities in science (2013)Gender inequality and restrictive gender norms: framing the challenges to health (2019)Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions (2021)Intersectional inequalities in science (2022)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Using thematic analysis in psychology (2006)The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we need to know? (2020)How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines (2021)Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR‐4‐SLR) (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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Including papers in languages other than English in systematic reviews: important, feasible, yet often omitted (2019)Measuring bonding or attachment in the parent-infant-relationship: A systematic review of parent-report assessment measures, their psychometric properties and clinical utility (2020)Overcoming Language Barriers in Academia: Machine Translation Tools and a Vision for a Multilingual Future (2022)COVID-19 medical papers have fewer women first authors than expected (2020)Gender, Race and Parenthood Impact Academic Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: From Survey to Action (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2019Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions14,763 cited
  • 2019Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines11,435 cited
  • 2012Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach1,232 cited
  • 2018The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?770 cited
  • 1995Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of babel bias?527 cited
  • 2020Are women publishing less during the pandemic? Here’s what the data say439 cited
  • 2015Inadequate Progress for Women in Academic Medicine: Findings from the National Faculty Study340 cited
  • 2018The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study206 cited
  • 2010The art and science of knowledge synthesis195 cited
  • 2012Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach186 cited
  • 2016Is Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender Differences in Contributorship169 cited
  • 2018The gendered system of academic publishing160 cited
  • 2017Gender Differences in the Authorship of Original Research in Pediatric Journals, 2001-2016156 cited
  • 2020The role of geographic bias in knowledge diffusion: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

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

142 cited
  • 2019How Often Do Systematic Reviews Exclude Articles Not Published in English?139 cited
  • 2011Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies134 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.