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
• 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence8,270 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: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias1,817 cited
• 2018Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?1,254 cited
• 2019GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions1,190 cited
• 2020Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews