SZodixStudyAcademic Library
DashboardShelvesOpen accessMy libraryInboxNotesWriteLearnAlerts
More
Ask your libraryNotificationsQuick citeReview
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study
16 references·1 citing·31 second hop
Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study (2022)Restrictions and their reporting in syste…The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An…JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (2020)JBI Manual for Evidence Synth…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…Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (2017)Evaluations of the uptake and…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES (2012)THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAG…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA statement for repo…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews (2007)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study (2002)Direction and impact of langu…Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Improving the quality of repo…Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German (1997)Language bias in randomised c…Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study (2023)Systematic review search stra…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)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)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)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. (2016)A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies (2020)A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm (2020)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)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 Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)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)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)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)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance (2021)Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2nd edition (2022)How to properly use the PRISMA Statement (2021)Strategies to improve response rates to web surveys: A literature review (2021)Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports (2022)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.44,857 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,189 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration17,627 cited
  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews5,137 cited
  • 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement4,828 cited
  • 2020JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis4,162 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2012THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES1,256 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
  • 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German1,029 cited
  • 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews

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

891 cited
  • 2002Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study891 cited
  • 2017Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review768 cited
  • 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2023Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study49 cited