SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
GRADE concept 4: rating the certainty of evidence when study interventions or comparators differ from PICO targets
6 references·0 citing·29 second hop
GRADE concept 4: rating the certainty of evidence when study interventions or comparators differ from PICO targets (2023)GRADE concept 4: rating the certainty of …RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)RoB 2: a revised tool for ass…Prevalence and Impact of Treatment Crossover in Cardiac Surgery Randomized Trials: A Meta‐Epidemiologic Study (2019)Prevalence and Impact of Trea…Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions (2013)Non‐randomized studies as a s…GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness (2011)GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating t…External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” (2005)External validity of randomis…Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports (2004)Users' guide to detecting mis…Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)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)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Extending the CONSORT Statement to Randomized Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment: Explanation and Elaboration (2008)The Role of Behavioral Science Theory in Development and Implementation of Public Health Interventions (2010)CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2011)How to Read a Paper (1999)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Subgroup Analysis of Trials Is Rarely Easy (SATIRE): a study protocol for a systematic review to characterize the analysis, reporting, and claim of subgroup effects in randomized trials (2009)Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency (2012)Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials (2018)Interpreting Results and Drawing Conclusions (2008)Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments (2016)Combining randomized and non‐randomized evidence in network meta‐analysis (2017)GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines (2021)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)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)Umbrella Reviews (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
  • 2005External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”2,541 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
  • 2013Non‐randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions248 cited
  • 2004Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports106 cited
  • 2019Prevalence and Impact of Treatment Crossover in Cardiac Surgery Randomized Trials: A Meta‐Epidemiologic Study20 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