SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?
0 references·12 citing·51 second hop
Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions? (2001)Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the …The quality of evidence for medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a metaepidemiological study of Cochrane reviews (2020)The quality of evidence for m…Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis (2015)Research synthesis in veterin…Systematic Reviews for Informing Rehabilitation Practice: An Introduction (2012)Systematic Reviews for Inform…Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists (2012)Primary study authors of sign…INCORPORATING INTEGRATIVE HEALTH SERVICES IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION (2009)INCORPORATING INTEGRATIVE HEA…Assessment of adverse effects and applicability – two areas not (yet) covered adequately in Cochrane reports (2008)Assessment of adverse effects…Should we ditch impact factors? (2007)Should we ditch impact factor…The Cochrane Skin Group: Promoting the Best Evidence (2005)The Cochrane Skin Group: Prom…The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in infection control and hospital epidemiology (2004)The use of systematic reviews…Meta-Analysis (2004)Meta-AnalysisAnálisis bibliométrico de las revisiones sistemáticas en la Colaboración Cochrane Neonatal. Importancia en la toma de decisiones basada en pruebas en neonatología (2004)Análisis bibliométrico de las…The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English Medical Discourse (1930–1995) (2003)The scimitar, the dagger and …The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews (2016)On the benefits of systematic reviews for wildlife parasitology (2016)Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed (2021)Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (1974)The Relaxation & Stress Reduction Workbook (1985)Effects of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on Medical and Premedical Students (1998)From Theory Toward Empathic Self-Care: Creating a Mindful Classroom for Social Work Students (2011)Outcome Literature Review of Integrative Body–Mind–Spirit Practices for Mental Health Conditions (2018)Should social workers be engaged in these practices? (2018)Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. (2001)Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement (2004)External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?” (2005)Empirical Evidence of Bias (1995)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)How Do Psychology Researchers Find Studies to Include in Meta-Analyses? (2007)Searching PubMed for studies on bacteremia, bloodstream infection, septicemia, or whatever the best term is: A note of caution (2011)A practical guide to systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in infection prevention: Planning, challenges, and execution (2017)Variation across Speech and Writing (1988)Textual metadiscourse in research articles: a marker of national culture or of academic discipline? (2004)Register, Genre, and Style (2009)Principles of Pragmatics (2016)Register, Genre, and Style (2019)Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary (2021)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2008)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Systematic overview of economic evaluations of health-related rehabilitation (2015)Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation (2018)The skewness of science (1992)Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (1997)Journal impact factor: a brief review. (1999)Calculating Impact Factor: How Bibliographical Classification of Journal Items Affects the Impact Factor of Large and Small Journals (2007)A Retrospective Analysis of the Trend of Retracted Publications in the Field of Biomedical and Life Sciences (2010)Positive and negative aspects of citation indices and journal impact factors (2012)Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses (2003)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies (2013)Application of credibility ceilings probes the robustness of meta-analyses of biomarkers and cancer risk (2014)A manifesto for reproducible science. (2024)How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence (2011)Testing the Risk of Bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs (2012)Retrospective median power, false positive meta‐analysis and large‐scale replication (2021)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Randomized-controlled trials are methodologically inappropriate in adolescent transgender healthcare (2023)The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. (1979)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)
this work references cited by second hop

References

No references inside the corpus for this window.

Cited by

  • 2003The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English Medical Discourse (1930–1995)210 cited
  • 2007Should we ditch impact factors?52 cited
  • 2012Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists49 cited
  • 2015Research synthesis in veterinary science: Narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analysis39 cited
  • 2020The quality of evidence for medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a metaepidemiological study of Cochrane reviews38 cited
  • 2009INCORPORATING INTEGRATIVE HEALTH SERVICES IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION23 cited
  • 2012Systematic Reviews for Informing Rehabilitation Practice: An Introduction20 cited
  • 2004The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in infection control and hospital epidemiology20 cited
  • 2008Assessment of adverse effects and applicability – two areas not (yet) covered adequately in Cochrane reports19 cited
  • 2004Meta-Analysis19 cited
  • 2005The Cochrane Skin Group: Promoting the Best Evidence11 cited
  • 2004Análisis bibliométrico de las revisiones sistemáticas en la Colaboración Cochrane Neonatal. Importancia en la toma de decisiones basada en pruebas en neonatología8 cited

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