SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
GRADE pearls and pitfalls—Part 1: Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses
16 references·0 citing·35 second hop
GRADE pearls and pitfalls—Part 1: Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (2024)GRADE pearls and pitfalls—Part 1: Systema…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)RoB 2: a revised tool for ass…GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions (2019)GRADE guidelines 26: informat…Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis (2017)Trial Sequential Analysis in …ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessin…New evidence pyramid (2016)New evidence pyramidUse of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients (2015)Use of GRADE for assessment o…Assessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors (2013)Assessing Bias in Studies of …QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for …GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence (2011)GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating u…GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness (2011)GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating t…GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating t…GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision (2011)GRADE guidelines 6. Rating th…Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results (2009)Publication bias in clinical …A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints (2005)A modified test for small‐stu…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies (2003)Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study (2008)GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency (2011)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” (2005)Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (2008)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis (2006)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care (2010)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies: The CHARMS Checklist (2014)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)Analysing and Presenting Results (2010)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses (2014)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)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)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)Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder (2012)How to properly use the PRISMA Statement (2021)Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement (2021)CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
  • 2016ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions20,225 cited
  • 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies14,163 cited
  • 2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews13,845 cited
  • 2013Assessing Bias in Studies of Prognostic Factors3,273 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision2,681 cited
  • 2005A modified test for small‐study effects in meta‐analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints2,270 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
  • 2016New evidence pyramid1,382 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence1,335 cited
  • 2017Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews with meta-analysis1,196 cited
  • 2019GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions1,190 cited

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

  • 2009Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results897 cited
  • 2015Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients877 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.