SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews with meta-analysis about clinical pharmacy services: A sensitivity analysis of AMSTAR-2
16 references·0 citing·43 second hop
Assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews with meta-analysis about clinical pharmacy services: A sensitivity analysis of AMSTAR-2 (2024)Assessing methodological quality of syste…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2020)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2020)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an…Mapping pharmacy journals: A lexicographic analysis (2019)Mapping pharmacy journals: A …Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting (2018)Registration of systematic re…Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability (2018)Quality assessment versus ris…The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity (2017)The risk of bias in systemati…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study (2016)Epidemiology and Reporting Ch…ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions (2011)An analysis of quality of sys…From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance (2010)From Systematic Reviews to Cl…From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~! (2010)From Systematic Reviews to Cl…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough (1998)Summing up evidence: one answ…Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials (1995)To IPD or not to IPD? (2002)Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. (2009)Meta-Analyst: software for meta-analysis of binary, continuous and diagnostic data (2009)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)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)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)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)Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity (2017)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA): explanation, elaboration, and checklist (2020)MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies (2021)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in 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)Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement (2022)Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation (2020)Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines (2021)Where to prospectively register a systematic review (2022)Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields: the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance (2021)Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement (2021)Strengthening systematic reviews in public health: guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2nd edition (2022)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2020The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews8,068 cited
  • 2020The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews5,174 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study766 cited
  • 1998Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough655 cited
  • 2018Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting508 cited
  • 2010From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence- Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance~!2009-10-24~!2009-10-03~!2010-07-16~!329 cited
  • 2010From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance184 cited

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

  • 2018Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability94 cited
  • 2017The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity74 cited
  • 2019Mapping pharmacy journals: A lexicographic analysis72 cited
  • 2011An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions67 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.