SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Forty Systematic Reviews of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Quality Assessment Using AMSTAR 2
16 references·0 citing·31 second hop
A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Forty Systematic Reviews of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) in Japan: Quality Assessment Using AMSTAR 2 (2023)A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Forty Sy…The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review (2023)The problems with systematic …Determining the safety and effectiveness of Tai Chi: a critical overview of 210 systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials (2022)Determining the safety and ef…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021)PRISMA-S: an extension to the…Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study (2021)Characteristics and quality o…The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study (2020)The methodological quality of…Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017 (2019)Assessment of Publication Tre…The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study (2018)The methodological quality of…Replication, Duplication, and Waste in a Quarter Million Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2018)Replication, Duplication, and…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 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…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Preferred reporting items for…The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's …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 Repo…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 Repo…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)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)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (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)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)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)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)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Systematic review search strategies are poorly reported and not reproducible: a cross-sectional metaresearch study (2023)Detecting jingle and jangle fallacies by identifying consistencies and variabilities in study specifications – a call for research (2024)Sample Sizes for 10 Types of Qualitative Data Analysis: An Integrative Review, Empirical Guidance, and Next Steps (2024)Global prevalence and burden of depressive and anxiety disorders in 204 countries and territories in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic (2021)PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
  • 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration28,094 cited
  • 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation13,108 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration10,345 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
  • 2015The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review2,079 cited
  • 2023The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review191 cited
  • 2018The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study107 cited
  • 2019Assessment of Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017

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

100 cited
  • 2020The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study73 cited
  • 2018Replication, Duplication, and Waste in a Quarter Million Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses73 cited
  • 2022Determining the safety and effectiveness of Tai Chi: a critical overview of 210 systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials52 cited
  • 2021Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study40 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.