SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Systematic reviews in orthodontics: A fresh look to promote renewal and reduce redundancy
11 references·0 citing·54 second hop
Systematic reviews in orthodontics: A fresh look to promote renewal and reduce redundancy (2022)Systematic reviews in orthodontics: A fre…A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste (2021)A new taxonomy was developed …Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics (2019)Systematic reviews in dentist…Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar (2019)Pragmatic methods for reviewi…Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many systematic reviews, too few trials (2019)Evidence-based orthodontics: …Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how (2017)Living systematic review: 1. …The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews (2015)The Quality of the Evidence A…The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand? (2015)The evidence from systematic …Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2012)Impact of single centre statu…A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2012)A PRISMA assessment of the re…Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Avoidable waste in the produc…The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry (2003)The assessment of systematic …Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)What is a meta-epidemiological study? Analysis of published literature indicated heterogeneous study designs and definitions (2020)Faculty appointment and promotion in Taiwan’s medical schools, a systematic analysis (2022)One-Third of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation Applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) System to Evaluate Certainty of Evidence: A Meta-Research Study (2022)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration (2013)Empirical evaluation of which trial characteristics are associated with treatment effect estimates (2016)Comparison of Clinical Trial Changes in Primary Outcome and Reported Intervention Effect Size Between Trial Registration and Publication (2019)GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The use of tailored subheadings was successful in enhancing compliance with CONSORT in a dental journal (2017)Heterogeneity in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in orthodontics (2018)Outcome reporting discrepancies between trial entries and published final reports of orthodontic randomized controlled trials (2018)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)Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement (2015)Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study (2017)Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA (2019)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Poor reporting and inadequate searches were apparent in systematic reviews of adverse effects (2008)Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm? (2012)Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews (2016)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort (2017)Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting (2018)Comparison of mental health symptoms before and during the covid-19 pandemic: evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 134 cohorts (2023)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting (2019)The 100 most cited articles in prosthodontic journals: A bibliometric analysis of articles published between 1951 and 2019 (2019)The 100 most-cited papers in oral medicine and pathology (2020)Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences (2005)The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS (2020)International trends of orthodontic publications: A bibliometric observational study of the last decade (2011-2020) (2023)Do statistical heterogeneity methods impact the results of meta- analyses? A meta epidemiological study (2024)Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Umbrella reviews: a useful study design in need of standardisation (2022)A methodological review finds mismatch between overall and pairwise overlap analysis in a sample of overviews (2023)Five aspects of research waste in biomedicine: A scoping review (2024)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)CONSORT Statement for Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments: A 2017 Update and a CONSORT Extension for Nonpharmacologic Trial Abstracts (2017)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence2,204 cited
  • 2017Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how652 cited
  • 2012Impact of single centre status on estimates of intervention effects in trials with continuous outcomes: meta-epidemiological study129 cited
  • 2003The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry121 cited
  • 2012A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics105 cited
  • 2019Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics53 cited
  • 2015The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?46 cited
  • 2015The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews37 cited
  • 2019Evidence-based orthodontics: Too many systematic reviews, too few trials35 cited
  • 2021A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste29 cited
  • 2019Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar16 cited

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.

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