SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
How Objective are Systematic Reviews? Differences between Reviews on Complementary Medicine
7 references·16 citing·39 second hop
How Objective are Systematic Reviews? Differences between Reviews on Complementary Medicine (2003)How Objective are Systematic Reviews? Dif…Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation (2000)Systematic reviews and meta-a…Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Improving the quality of repo…Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis…A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. (1997)A guide to interpreting disco…Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology (1996)Meta-analyses to evaluate ana…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. D…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasFallacious, misleading and unhelpful: The case for removing ‘systematic review’ from bioethics nomenclature (2022)Fallacious, misleading and un…The methodological quality was low and conclusions discordant for meta-analyses comparing proximal humerus fracture treatments: a meta-epidemiological study (2021)The methodological quality wa…A decade of systematic literature review on Airbnb: the sharing economy from a multiple stakeholder perspective (2021)A decade of systematic litera…Nonprofit entrepreneurial orientation: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework (2019)Nonprofit entrepreneurial ori…The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses – An Empirical Study (2016)The Impact of Excluding Trial…The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews (2016)The art and science of study …The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey (2013)The effects of excluding trea…Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews (2010)Can we rely on the best trial…The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing (2009)The Value of “Traditional” Re…SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review (2009)SUPPORT Tools for evidence-in…Searching for Controlled Trials of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Comparison of 15 Databases (2009)Searching for Controlled Tria…Reading, writing and systematic review (2008)Reading, writing and systemat…Reproducibility of systematic literature reviews on food, nutrition, physical activity and endometrial cancer (2007)Reproducibility of systematic…Differences between systematic reviews/meta-analyses of hyaluronic acid/hyaluronan/hylan in osteoarthritis of the knee (2007)Differences between systemati…Reporting Random Controlled Trials of Herbal Medicines (2006)Reporting Random Controlled T…Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies (2006)Comparability work and the ma…A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction (1992)Toward Improved Evidence Standards and Methods for Rehabilitation: Recommendations and Challenges (2012)Wearable devices as adjuncts in the treatment of anxiety‐related symptoms: A narrative review of five device modalities and implications for clinical practice. (2019)The bibliographical review as a research methodology (2021)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)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)How we should measure "change": Or should we? (1970)Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials (2003)A Case Study of Discordant Overlapping Meta-Analyses: Vitamin D Supplements and Fracture (2014)How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm (2022)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis. (1985)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery (2001)How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine (2003)Mind-Body Medicine: State of the Science, Implications for Practice (2003)Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (1986)After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (2004)Cardiac Disease and Its Consequences on the Partner Relationship: A Systematic Review (2011)Metasynthetic Madness (2016)Universal violence and child maltreatment prevention programs for parents: A systematic review (2016)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence (1990)Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists (1995)Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM Statement (2000)Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies (2013)Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews (2021)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study (2005)Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials (2009)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2008)Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2014)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
  • 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
  • 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement4,828 cited
  • 1997Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions2,184 cited
  • 1997A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.394 cited
  • 2000Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation263 cited
  • 1996Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology205 cited

Cited by

  • 2009The Value of “Traditional” Reviews in the Era of Systematic Reviewing103 cited
  • 2008Reading, writing and systematic review93 cited
  • 2007Differences between systematic reviews/meta-analyses of hyaluronic acid/hyaluronan/hylan in osteoarthritis of the knee86 cited
  • 2013The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey71 cited
  • 2006Comparability work and the management of difference in research synthesis studies69 cited
  • 2021A decade of systematic literature review on Airbnb: the sharing economy from a multiple stakeholder perspective64 cited
  • 2009SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 8: Deciding how much confidence to place in a systematic review

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

54 cited
  • 2010Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews37 cited
  • 2019Nonprofit entrepreneurial orientation: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework34 cited
  • 2006Reporting Random Controlled Trials of Herbal Medicines31 cited
  • 2016The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses – An Empirical Study28 cited
  • 2009Searching for Controlled Trials of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Comparison of 15 Databases23 cited
  • 2016The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews22 cited
  • 2022Fallacious, misleading and unhelpful: The case for removing ‘systematic review’ from bioethics nomenclature17 cited
  • 2007Reproducibility of systematic literature reviews on food, nutrition, physical activity and endometrial cancer15 cited
  • 2021The methodological quality was low and conclusions discordant for meta-analyses comparing proximal humerus fracture treatments: a meta-epidemiological study13 cited