SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
16 references·1 citing·40 second hop
The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta‐analysis (2023)The impact of blinding on trial results: …The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas (2021)Declaración PRISMA 2020: una …Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline (2020)Synthesis without meta-analys…Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Updated guidance for trusted …RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)RoB 2: a revised tool for ass…GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions (2019)GRADE guidelines 26: informat…The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence (2017)The GRADE Working Group clari…Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials (2012)Influence of Reported Study D…The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's …Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)Empirical evidence of bias in…How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study (2003)How important are comprehensi…Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses (2001)Reported Methodologic Quality…The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquito…Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Bias in meta-analysis detecte…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasInfluence of lack of blinding on the estimation of medication-related harms: a retrospective cohort study of randomized controlled trials (2024)Influence of lack of blinding…A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963)Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (1975)Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? (2000)A manifesto for reproducible science (2017)Fake News Detection on Social Media (2017)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)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)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses (2008)Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses (2019)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias (1994)The cochrane database of systematic reviews (1996)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 reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package (2010)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2019)Prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological distress among populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020)How to properly use the PRISMA Statement (2021)PRISMA2020 : An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis (2022)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)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)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)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)PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
  • 1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test56,637 cited
  • 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
  • 1998Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises7,230 cited
  • 2019Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions7,170 cited
  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
  • 2020Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline4,561 cited
  • 2008Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study2,534 cited
  • 2001Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses2,285 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2021Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas1,309 cited
  • 2019GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions1,190 cited
  • 2003

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

How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study
1,181 cited
  • 2012Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials1,047 cited
  • 2017The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence847 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2024Influence of lack of blinding on the estimation of medication-related harms: a retrospective cohort study of randomized controlled trials14 cited