SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Systematic Reviews: What can They do for You?
16 references·0 citing·39 second hop
Systematic Reviews: What can They do for You? (1996)Systematic Reviews: What can They do for …Misleading meta-analysis (1995)Misleading meta-analysisMeta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy (1995)Meta-analytic methods for dia…Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews (1995)Identifying relevant studies …Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group (1994)Users' guides to the medical …Users' Guides to the Medical Literature (1994)Users' Guides to the Medical …Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)Systematic Reviews: Rationale…Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews (1994)Systematic Reviews: Identifyi…Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles (1994)Systematic Reviews: Checklist…Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine (1994)Meta-Analysis, Decision Analy…Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis (1994)Full publication of results i…Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts (1994)Full Publication of Results I…Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away (1993)Publication Bias: The Problem…Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Publication bias in clinical …The Medical Review Article: State of the Science (1987)The Medical Review Article: S…Reference bias in reports of drug trials. (1987)Reference bias in reports of …Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. (1986)Publication bias: the case fo…Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research (1976)Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research (1987)A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical Experts (1992)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‐Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review (2003)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Treatment selection for cancer patients: Application of statistical decision theory to the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer (1985)Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta‐analysis (1987)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis (2001)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Eating Disorders (1985)Review articles: 2. The literature jungle. (1986)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)Meta-analysis in social research (1982)The Handbook of Research Synthesis. (1994)The Handbook of Research Synthesis. (1995)The integrative review: updated methodology (2005)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Publication bias: Its implications for clinical pharmacology (1992)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results (1992)Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? (1993)Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Publication Decisions and Their Possible Effects on Inferences Drawn from Tests of Significance--Or Vice Versa (1959)Publication Bias: A Problem in Interpreting Medical Data (1988)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research. (1994)Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample (2005)Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review (2009)The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis (2019)Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews (1997)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (2000)How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care (2014)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1991Publication bias in clinical research3,110 cited
  • 1994Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews2,256 cited
  • 1994Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews1,678 cited
  • 1994Users' Guides to the Medical Literature915 cited
  • 1994Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine871 cited
  • 1987The Medical Review Article: State of the Science857 cited
  • 1986Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials.746 cited
  • 1995Misleading meta-analysis508 cited
  • 1994Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group486 cited
  • 1994Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles480 cited
  • 1995Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy467 cited
  • 1993Publication Bias: The Problem That Won't Go Away427 cited
  • 1994Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis403 cited
  • 1994Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts296 cited
  • 1987Reference bias in reports of drug trials.222 cited

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

  • 1995Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews131 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.