Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Clinical Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews: The why is Easy, the how is a Challenge

11 references·14 citing·37 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials33,776 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
2004Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials1,845 cited
2012Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials1,047 cited
2010Stopping Randomized Trials Early for Benefit and Estimation of Treatment Effects Systematic Review and Meta-regression Analysis613 cited
2008Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies352 cited
2009Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study348 cited
2011Single-Center Trials Show Larger Treatment Effects Than Multicenter Trials: Evidence From a Meta-epidemiologic Study305 cited
2013Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment88 cited
2011Metabias: A Challenge for Comparative Effectiveness Research67 cited

Cited by

2019S3-Leitlinie zur Diagnostik, Beratung und Behandlung im Kontext von Geschlechtsinkongruenz, Geschlechtsdysphorie und Trans-Gesundheit42 cited
2019Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design

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

39 cited

2015Risk of bias of randomized trials over time34 cited

2016Mechanisms and direction of allocation bias in randomised clinical trials32 cited

2017Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda30 cited

2017Some Cochrane risk-of-bias items are not important in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews23 cited

2020Do acupuncture trials have lower risk of bias over the last five decades? A methodological study of 4 715 randomized controlled trials16 cited

2016Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-201414 cited

2014Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien12 cited

2021RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS IN DENTAL JOURNALS ON CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS10 cited

2014Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study9 cited

2023Applying dyadic digital psychological interventions for reducing caregiver burden in the illness context: a systematic review and a meta-analysis protocol8 cited

2024Methodological quality assessment tools for diagnosis and prognosis research: overview and guidance7 cited

2020Agreement of Risk-of -Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality6 cited