SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Risk and Evidence of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics
16 references·0 citing·46 second hopsampled
Risk and Evidence of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in EconomicsRisk and Evidence of Bias in Randomized C…Reshaping Institutions: Evidence on Aid Impacts Using a Preanalysis Plan* (2012)Reshaping Institutions: Evide…CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updat…CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updat…Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008)Systematic Review of the Empi…Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Empirical evidence of bias in…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects (2007)Experimental Analysis of Neig…Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (2006)Does the CONSORT checklist im…Bias in Clinical Intervention Research (2006)Bias in Clinical Intervention…Productivity in pharmaceutical–biotechnology R&D: the role of experience and alliances (2005)Productivity in pharmaceutica…Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost‐effectiveness modelling (2003)Bayesian approaches to multip…The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revise…Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies (2001)Comparison of Evidence of Tre…The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials (1999)Assessing the Quality of Rand…Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Does quality of reports of ra…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields (2004)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program (2011)Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods (2015)Publication bias in clinical research (1991)Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context (2000)Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis (2005)Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning (2017)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)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)Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide (2014)Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (2014)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1988)Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress (2002)SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide (2003)Female Leadership Raises Aspirations and Educational Attainment for Girls: A Policy Experiment in India (2012)On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough * (2013)The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment (2016)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on symptoms of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2012)Response rates for CBT for anxiety disorders: Need for standardized criteria (2015)Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review (2018)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions25,045 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials13,365 cited
  • 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials5,372 cited
  • 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
  • 2007Experimental Analysis of Neighborhood Effects2,716 cited
  • 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials1,871 cited
  • 2008Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias1,544 cited
  • 2001Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies919 cited
  • 2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review873 cited
  • 1999Assessing the Quality of Randomized Trials649 cited
  • 2006Bias in Clinical Intervention Research636 cited
  • 2012

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

Reshaping Institutions: Evidence on Aid Impacts Using a Preanalysis Plan*
455 cited
  • 2005Productivity in pharmaceutical–biotechnology R&D: the role of experience and alliances290 cited
  • 2003Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost‐effectiveness modelling235 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.