SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Quality of reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published on the role of telehealth during COVID-19
16 references·0 citing·39 second hop
Quality of reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published on the role of telehealth during COVID-19 (2022)Quality of reporting of literature search…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021)The evolving role of preprint…The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine (2021)The effect of librarian invol…PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021)PRISMA-S: an extension to the…Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers (2020)Quality and risk of bias appr…Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A review, evaluation, and recommendations (2020)Literature searches in system…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Cochrane Handbook for Systema…Chapter 1: Systematic Reviews (2019)Chapter 1: Systematic ReviewsReproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Reproducibility of Search Str…PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement (2016)PRESS Peer Review of Electron…Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors (2015)Use of Recommended Search Str…ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews (2015)Librarian co-authors correlat…A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies (2009)A typology of reviews: an ana…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)Meta-analysis of Observationa…The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis (1988)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses (2010)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Oxford English dictionary (2004)The Oxford English Dictionary Online (2004)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Scoping studies: advancing the methodology (2010)Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines (2019)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 PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)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)Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)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 publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals (2013)Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations (2020)Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations (2020)ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)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)Interventions for Workplace Violence Prevention in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review (2021)Risk Perception towards COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis (2022)A Trend Analysis of the Challenges of International Students Over 21 Years (2023)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
  • 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting20,612 cited
  • 2009A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies10,781 cited
  • 2016PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement5,681 cited
  • 2020Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions5,670 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2021PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews3,654 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2021The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape556 cited
  • 2019Chapter 1: Systematic Reviews341 cited
  • 2015Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews330 cited
  • 2020Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A review, evaluation, and recommendations293 cited
  • 2015Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors159 cited

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

  • 2016Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study107 cited
  • 2020Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers73 cited
  • 2021The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine63 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.