SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional systemic review
16 references·0 citing·43 second hopsampled
The methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional systemic review (2021)The methodological quality of surgical ra…Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses (2017)Impact of searching clinical …Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews (2017)Grey literature: An important…Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews (2017)Gray literature: An important…Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions (2017)Enhancing the usability of sy…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement (2016)PRESS Peer Review of Electron…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015)Librarian co-authors correlat…High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes (2015)High statistical heterogeneit…Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor (2015)Critical appraisal of AMSTAR:…Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)Increasing value and reducing…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Systematic Reviews in Health Care (2001)Systematic Reviews in Health …Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (1995)Meta-analysis of Randomized C…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasValidation of an index of the quality of review articles (1991)Validation of an index of the…Modern Epidemiology 3rd edition (1986)Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests (1999)Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? (2011)The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (2017)A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial (1981)Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis (1992)Assessing the Quality of Randomization From Reports of Controlled Trials Published in Obstetrics and Gynecology Journals (1994)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)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)Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study (2017)Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources (2019)PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Methodological index for non‐randomized studies ( MINORS ): development and validation of a new instrument (2003)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration (2008)A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies (2020)A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm (2020)Could virtual reality applications pose real risks to children and adolescents? A systematic review of ethical issues and concerns (2021)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Systematic-narrative hybrid literature review: A strategy for integrating a concise methodology into a manuscript (2022)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
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 both10,856 cited
  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias7,306 cited
  • 2016PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement5,744 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2014Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis1,597 cited
  • 2017Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews1,508 cited
  • 1991Validation of an index of the quality of review articles788 cited
  • 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
  • 2017Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews516 cited
  • 2015Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews338 cited
  • 2001Systematic Reviews in Health Care275 cited
  • 2017Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions198 cited
  • 1995Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials147 cited
  • 2015High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta-analysis of continuous than binary outcomes

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

131 cited
  • 2015Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor111 cited
  • 2017Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses111 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.