SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Spin in traumatic brain injury literature: prevalence and associated factors. A systematic review
16 references·0 citing·44 second hopsampled
Spin in traumatic brain injury literature: prevalence and associated factors. A systematic review (2024)Spin in traumatic brain injury literature…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…A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers (2019)A systematic review finds tha…Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2017)Overinterpretation of Researc…‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review (2017)‘Spin’ in published biomedica…Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)Rayyan—a web and mobile app f…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 …Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention (2015)Classification and prevalence…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…"Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study (2013)"Hardly worth the effort"? Me…Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery (2010)Standards for reporting rando…Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes (2010)Reporting and Interpretation …"Spin" in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. (2007)"Spin" in scientific writing:…Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors (2005)Identifying outcome reporting…Randomized Trials of Neurosurgical Interventions: A Systematic Appraisal (2004)Randomized Trials of Neurosur…The rhetoric of research (1995)The rhetoric of researchComparison of Registered and Published Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials (2009)Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review (2019)The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration (2001)Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials (2004)Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias (2008)Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research (2014)STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2015)STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015)Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research (2002)Analyzing Qualitative Data (2007)Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research (2010)Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013 (2015)Update on Trial Registration 11 Years after the ICMJE Policy Was Established (2017)CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020)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)Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis (2015)CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials (2025)The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials (2001)Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues (2002)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)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)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)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)Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review (2019)An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews (2021)Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review (2021)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials (2018)Evidence of questionable research practices in clinical prediction models (2023)The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (2011)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)Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal (2024)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)PRISMA2020 : An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis (2022)
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 reviews119,202 cited
  • 2019RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,975 cited
  • 2016Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews27,008 cited
  • 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes833 cited
  • 2005Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors612 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
  • 2017‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review314 cited
  • 2016A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity235 cited
  • 2013"Hardly worth the effort"? Medical journals' policies and their editors' and publishers' views on trial registration and publication bias: quantitative and qualitative study139 cited
  • 2015Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention137 cited
  • 1995The rhetoric of research131 cited
  • 2007"Spin" in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy.82 cited
  • 2017Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

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

72 cited
  • 2010Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery65 cited
  • 2004Randomized Trials of Neurosurgical Interventions: A Systematic Appraisal34 cited
  • 2019A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers33 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.