SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention
16 references·1 citing·45 second hopsampled
Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention (2022)Predictors of Higher Quality of Systemati…Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers (2020)Protocol registration issues …What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)What kind of systematic revie…The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations (2018)The methodological quality of…Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality (2018)Registration in the internati…Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? – A systematic review of reviews: an update (2018)Does the medical literature r…The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar (2017)The methodological and report…Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality (2017)Systematic review adherence t…Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study (2017)Identifying approaches for as…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…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015)The methodological quality as…ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality (2014)Systematic reviews published …Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature (2013)Reporting and Methodological …Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement? (2013)Association of Study Quality …Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist (2022)Reporting quality of abstract…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)Effects of music interventions on stress-related outcomes: a systematic review and two meta-analyses (2019)Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? (2020)Anxiety, depression, trauma-related, and sleep disorders among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2021)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)The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed (2005)AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review (2017)Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions (2017)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study (2018)Impact of risk perception on customer purchase behavior: a meta-analysis (2019)Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions (2020)Graduate Employability and Competence Development in Higher Education—A Systematic Literature Review Using PRISMA (2020)PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines (2021)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)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)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)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The development of software to support multiple systematic review types (2018)The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review (2018)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)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)Revisões da literatura científica: tipos, métodos e aplicações em enfermagem (2018)Reporting and utilization of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures in orthopedic research and practice: a systematic review (2020)Scoping reviews in medical education: A scoping review (2020)
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 both10,605 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2015The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review2,079 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2018What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences1,160 cited
  • 2018Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality388 cited
  • 2017Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality322 cited
  • 2017The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar248 cited
  • 2013Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement?146 cited
  • 2020Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers141 cited
  • 2018Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? – A systematic review of reviews: an update

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

134 cited
  • 2014Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality112 cited
  • 2013Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature112 cited
  • 2018The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations79 cited
  • 2017Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study75 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2022Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist6 cited