Citation map · Study

Evaluation of tools used to assess adherence to PRISMA 2020 reveals inconsistent methods and poor tool implementability: part I of a systematic review

16 references·0 citing·42 second hop

this work references cited by second hop

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews107,380 cited
2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
2010Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines1,432 cited
2017Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review768 cited
2019Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research153 cited
2018Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? – A systematic review of reviews: an update134 cited
2024Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024123 cited
2013Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD119 cited
2020Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing93 cited
2023Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatment interventions for Internet use disorders: Critical analysis of the methodical quality according to the PRISMA guidelines35 cited
2023Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study26 cited
2023The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence

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

Cited by

No citing works inside the corpus for this window.