SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses of Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Hip Osteoarthritis
7 references·0 citing·34 second hop
Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses of Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Hip Osteoarthritis (2024)Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Sys…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool (2019)A psychometric study found AM…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…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 …Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial (2014)Impact of Spin in the Abstrac…Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis (2013)Demystifying trial networks a…INTRODUCING LEVELS OF EVIDENCE TO THE JOURNAL (2003)INTRODUCING LEVELS OF EVIDENC…Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial (2010)GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011)GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology (2016)Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses (2017)Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata (2017)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis (2015)‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)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)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)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)A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2 (2021)Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review (2021)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)LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IN ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNALS (2005)How to Write a Systematic Review (2013)How Effective is Cultural Competence Training of Healthcare Providers on Improving Patient Satisfaction of Minority Groups? A Systematic Review of Literature (2016)
this work references cited by second hop

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
  • 2003INTRODUCING LEVELS OF EVIDENCE TO THE JOURNAL1,298 cited
  • 2013Demystifying trial networks and network meta-analysis742 cited
  • 2014Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial366 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

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