Citation map · Study

Spin is Prevalent in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction

15 references·0 citing·43 second hopsampled

this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews13,845 cited
2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes828 cited
2014The Systematic Review598 cited
2010An international registry of systematic-review protocols513 cited
2016Research Techniques Made Simple: Assessing Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews315 cited
2016A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity224 cited
2019A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool207 cited
2019Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience43 cited
2018Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study38 cited
2021Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humeral fractures34 cited
2022Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of superior capsular reconstruction34 cited
2021Over 30% of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses Focused on Rotator Cuff Tear Treatments Contained Spin in the Abstract

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

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.