SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews
16 references·0 citing·46 second hop
Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews (2023)Principles for good scholarship in system…The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review (2023)The problems with systematic …Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Guidance to best tools and pr…When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist (2020)When to replicate systematic …Language bias in systematic reviews: you only get out what you put in (2020)Language bias in systematic r…How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods (2020)How is the minimal clinically…Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem (2020)Future of evidence ecosystem …Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach (2018)Systematic review or scoping …The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence (2017)The GRADE Working Group clari…A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity (2016)A new classification of spin …ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)Preferred reporting items for…The Systematic Review (2014)The Systematic ReviewContent area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? (2012)Content area experts as autho…How to write a Cochrane systematic review (2010)How to write a Cochrane syste…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…Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)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)A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence‐Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care (2016)The Joanna Briggs Institute approach for systematic reviews (2018)The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for analytical cross-sectional studies (2025)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)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Systematic Reviews in Health Care (2001)Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (2007)Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results (2009)Assessment of Methodologic Quality of Randomized Trials of Interventional Techniques: Development of an Interventional Pain Management Specific Instrument (2014)Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence (2021)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (2011)Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2017)Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses (2019)GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)GRADE Guidelines 28: Use of GRADE for the assessment of evidence about prognostic factors: rating certainty in identification of groups of patients with different absolute risks (2020)GRADE Guidelines 30: the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence—An overview in the context of health decision-making (2020)A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas (2022)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2020)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews (2022)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Measurement of health status (1989)Assessment of Quality-of-Life Outcomes (1996)Interpretation of Changes in Health-related Quality of Life (2003)Brief self-affirmation intervention for adults with psoriasis for reducing anxiety and depression and boosting well-being: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial (2021)Understanding Clinical Significance in Rehabilitation (2021)Effectiveness of a brief hope intervention for chronic kidney disease patients on the decisional conflict and quality of life: a pilot randomized controlled trial (2022)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)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 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 statement26,189 cited
  • 2018Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach11,351 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2017The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence847 cited
  • 2014The Systematic Review598 cited
  • 2020How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods453 cited
  • 2010How to write a Cochrane systematic review254 cited
  • 2016A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity224 cited
  • 2023The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review191 cited
  • 2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews163 cited
  • 2020When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist109 cited
  • 2012

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

Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?
107 cited
  • 2020Language bias in systematic reviews: you only get out what you put in102 cited
  • 2020Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem70 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.