SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study
16 references·0 citing·51 second hopsampled
Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study (2023)Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR …The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019 (2021)Nearly 80 systematic reviews …A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2 (2021)A comparison of two assessmen…The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study (2020)The methodological quality of…Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool (2019)Overall confidence in the res…A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool (2019)A psychometric study found AM…Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability (2018)Quality assessment versus ris…Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies (2018)Minor differences were found …A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer (2018)A systematic assessment of Co…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality (2014)Systematic reviews published …Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview (2014)Systematic review finds overl…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions (2001)On the bias produced by quali…The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields (2004)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions (1997)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2010)Examining overlap of included studies in meta‐reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index (2019)Computer-Mediated Communication, Social Media, and Mental Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Meta-Review (2020)Sleep duration and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews (2020)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Bias Modelling in Evidence Synthesis (2008)RE: "SHOULD META-ANALYSES OF INTERVENTIONS INCLUDE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ADDITION TO RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS? A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES" (2009)Efficacy of internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (2015)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology (2016)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review (2021)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (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)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)metaumbrella: the first comprehensive suite to perform data analysis in umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence (2023)CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol (2025)Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. (1971)Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials (2023)Single-Session Interventions for Mental Health Problems and Service Engagement: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2025)Umbrella reviews: a methodological guide (2025)
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 reviews107,380 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2014Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview1,308 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2001On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions359 cited
  • 2021Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019276 cited
  • 2019A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool207 cited
  • 2021A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2129 cited
  • 2018Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies118 cited
  • 2014Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality112 cited
  • 2018Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability

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

94 cited
  • 2019Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool87 cited
  • 2018A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer84 cited
  • 2020The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study73 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.