SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Quality of reporting inflammatory bowel disease randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
16 references·0 citing·28 second hop
Quality of reporting inflammatory bowel disease randomised controlled trials: a systematic review (2024)Quality of reporting inflammatory bowel d…RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)RoB 2: a revised tool for ass…Association Between Risk-of-Bias Assessments and Results of Randomized Trials in Cochrane Reviews: The ROBES Meta-Epidemiologic Study (2017)Association Between Risk-of-B…RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews (2013)RAMESES publication standards…The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)The Cochrane Collaboration's …GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias) (2011)GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating t…Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts (2007)Full publication of results i…Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals (2006)Peer Review: A Flawed Process…Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals (2006)Peer review: a flawed process…How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study (2003)How important are comprehensi…Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (2002)Correlation of Quality Measur…Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials (2001)Use of the CONSORT Statement …Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? (1998)Does quality of reports of ra…Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement (1996)Improving the quality of repo…Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials (1996)Improving the Quality of Repo…Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. D…Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical Evidence of BiasThe file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence (2012)Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials (2012)THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES (2012)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)Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1963)Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. (2003)Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review (2006)Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (2007)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials (2001)Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews (1994)Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations (2003)Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration (2007)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 cited
  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,067 cited
  • 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias5,632 cited
  • 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials5,560 cited
  • 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?3,560 cited
  • 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement3,337 cited
  • 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials3,126 cited
  • 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
  • 2003How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study1,181 cited
  • 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials1,026 cited
  • 2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts996 cited
  • 2006Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals868 cited
  • 2006Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals794 cited
  • 2013RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews

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

611 cited
  • 2002Correlation of Quality Measures With Estimates of Treatment Effect in Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials473 cited
  • 2017Association Between Risk-of-Bias Assessments and Results of Randomized Trials in Cochrane Reviews: The ROBES Meta-Epidemiologic Study381 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.