SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
The CHANGE (Climate Health ANalysis Grading Evaluation) tool for weight of evidence reviews on climate change and health research
10 references·0 citing·49 second hop
The CHANGE (Climate Health ANalysis Grading Evaluation) tool for weight of evidence reviews on climate change and health research (2024)The CHANGE (Climate Health ANalysis Gradi…Streamlining Systematic Reviews: Harnessing Large Language Models for Quality Assessment and Risk-of-Bias Evaluation (2023)Streamlining Systematic Revie…Are ChatGPT and large language models “the answer” to bringing us closer to systematic review automation? (2023)Are ChatGPT and large languag…Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools (2020)Assessing risk of bias in hum…The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews (2019)The value of a second reviewe…Spatial Lifecourse Epidemiology Reporting Standards (ISLE-ReSt) statement (2019)Spatial Lifecourse Epidemiolo…Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research (2015)Systematic review approaches …The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health Outcomes (2014)The Navigation Guide Systemat…Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments (2014)Systematic Review and Evidenc…Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency (2013)Openness in Political Science…Using Systematic Reviews to Separate Scientific from Policy Debate Relevant to Climate Change (2011)Using Systematic Reviews to S…Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions (2001)Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide (2006)Contextualizing the twin concepts of systematicity and transparency in information systems literature reviews (2016)Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports (2016)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes (2018)ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps (2018)A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) (2024)Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research (1976)Movements shaping climate futures: A systematic mapping of protests against fossil fuel and low-carbon energy projects (2020)The ABC of systematic literature review: the basic methodological guidance for beginners (2020)Reactions towards organizational change: a systematic literature review (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)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Facilitating healthcare decisions by assessing the certainty in the evidence from preclinical animal studies (2018)The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures (2018)What Is the Value of Social Science? Challenges for Researchers and Government Funders (2013)Explicit Bayesian Analysis for Process Tracing: Guidelines, Opportunities, and Caveats (2017)Making replication mainstream (2017)Implications of the Credibility Revolution for Productivity, Creativity, and Progress (2018)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2013)Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine (2020)Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial (2020)Transforming literature screening: The emerging role of large language models in systematic reviews (2025)Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Uncertain Geographic Context Problem (2012)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement (2013)The Association between Green Space and Adolescents’ Mental Well-Being: A Systematic Review (2020)Associations between the built environment and obesity: an umbrella review (2021)Objectively measuring the association between the built environment and physical activity: a systematic review and reporting framework (2022)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)Selecting Risk of Bias Tools for Observational Studies for a Systematic Review of Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children (2021)Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies in Environmental Health: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review on Traffic-Related Air Pollution (2023)Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry (2017)It takes longer than you think: librarian time spent on systematic review tasks (2018)The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials (2019)Harnessing the Power of ChatGPT for Automating Systematic Review Process: Methodology, Case Study, Limitations, and Future Directions (2023)Factors affecting performance expectancy and intentions to use ChatGPT: Using SmartPLS to advance an information technology acceptance framework (2024)The emergence of large language models as tools in literature reviews: a large language model-assisted systematic review (2025)Quality versus Risk-of-Bias assessment in clinical research (2021)Revising the JBI quantitative critical appraisal tools to improve their applicability: an overview of methods and the development process (2022)Automating Research Synthesis with Domain-Specific Large Language Model Fine-Tuning (2025)Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use—a scoping review (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research478 cited
  • 2014Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments438 cited
  • 2014The Navigation Guide Systematic Review Methodology: A Rigorous and Transparent Method for Translating Environmental Health Science into Better Health Outcomes426 cited
  • 2019The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews300 cited
  • 2023Are ChatGPT and large language models “the answer” to bringing us closer to systematic review automation?230 cited
  • 2013Openness in Political Science: Data Access and Research Transparency157 cited
  • 2019Spatial Lifecourse Epidemiology Reporting Standards (ISLE-ReSt) statement88 cited
  • 2020Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools82 cited
  • 2011Using Systematic Reviews to Separate Scientific from Policy Debate Relevant to Climate Change40 cited
  • 2023Streamlining Systematic Reviews: Harnessing Large Language Models for Quality Assessment and Risk-of-Bias Evaluation31 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