SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews
5 references·0 citing·24 second hopsampled
The role of study quality in aspartame and cancer epidemiology study reviews (2023)The role of study quality in aspartame an…The ROBINS‐I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: A random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta‐analysis (2021)The ROBINS‐I and the NOS had …The Problem With Mechanistic Risk of Bias Assessments in Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies and a Practical Alternative: Assessing the Impact of Specific Sources of Potential Bias (2019)The Problem With Mechanistic …ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessin…Systematic comparison of study quality criteria (2015)Systematic comparison of stud…The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's …Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)Framework for the quantitative weight-of-evidence analysis of ‘omics data for regulatory purposes (2017)Draft for internal testing Scientific Committee guidance on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments (2020)Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review (2021)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? (2002)Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health (2020)The confounder matrix: A tool to assess confounding bias in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology (2021)Neighborhood infrastructure-related risk factors and non-communicable diseases: a systematic meta-review (2023)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)Enhancing study quality assessment: an in-depth review of risk of bias tools for meta-analysis—a comprehensive guide for anesthesiologists (2023)Risk of Bias Evaluation of Cross‐Sectional Studies: Adaptation of the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (2025)The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for Assessing the Quality of Studies in Systematic Reviews (2026)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,820 cited
  • 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions20,711 cited
  • 2021The ROBINS‐I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: A random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta‐analysis136 cited
  • 2019The Problem With Mechanistic Risk of Bias Assessments in Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies and a Practical Alternative: Assessing the Impact of Specific Sources of Potential Bias66 cited
  • 2015Systematic comparison of study quality criteria48 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