298 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12577072)
1. Further statistics in dentistry Part 8: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Petrie A; Bulman JS; Osborn JF
Br Dent J; 2003 Jan; 194(2):73-8. PubMed ID: 12577072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Manchikanti L; Datta S; Smith HS; Hirsch JA
Pain Physician; 2009; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.
Rinchuse DJ; Rinchuse DJ; Kandasamy S; Ackerman MB
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 18575311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.
Tierney JF; Stewart LA
Int J Epidemiol; 2005 Feb; 34(1):79-87. PubMed ID: 15561753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. How to read and understand and use systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Leucht S; Kissling W; Davis JM
Acta Psychiatr Scand; 2009 Jun; 119(6):443-50. PubMed ID: 19469725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
Akobeng AK
Arch Dis Child; 2005 Aug; 90(8):845-8. PubMed ID: 16040886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Montori VM; Swiontkowski MF; Cook DJ
Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2003 Aug; (413):43-54. PubMed ID: 12897595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews.
Bender R; Bunce C; Clarke M; Gates S; Lange S; Pace NL; Thorlund K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Sep; 61(9):857-65. PubMed ID: 18687287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated, step-by-step guide.
Pai M; McCulloch M; Gorman JD; Pai N; Enanoria W; Kennedy G; Tharyan P; Colford JM
Natl Med J India; 2004; 17(2):86-95. PubMed ID: 15141602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comprehensiveness and bias in reporting clinical trials. Study of reviews of pneumococcal vaccine effectiveness.
Hutchison BG; Oxman AD; Lloyd S
Can Fam Physician; 1995 Aug; 41():1356-60. PubMed ID: 7580384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of analysis by gender in the Cochrane reviews as related to treatment of cardiovascular disease.
Johnson SM; Karvonen CA; Phelps CL; Nader S; Sanborn BM
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2003 Jun; 12(5):449-57. PubMed ID: 12869292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
Jadad AR; Cook DJ; Browman GP
CMAJ; 1997 May; 156(10):1411-6. PubMed ID: 9164400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations.
Manchikanti L
Pain Physician; 2008; 11(2):161-86. PubMed ID: 18354710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Methods for comparing the results of different studies.
Eckert SE; Choi YG; Koka S
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2003; 18(5):697-705. PubMed ID: 14579958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Getting to grips with systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Davies HT; Crombie IK
Hosp Med; 1998 Dec; 59(12):955-8. PubMed ID: 10696361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research.
Sterne JA; Jüni P; Schulz KF; Altman DG; Bartlett C; Egger M
Stat Med; 2002 Jun; 21(11):1513-24. PubMed ID: 12111917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
Hughes EG
Semin Reprod Endocrinol; 1996 May; 14(2):161-9. PubMed ID: 8796939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes.
Royle PL; Bain L; Waugh NR
Diabet Med; 2005 Oct; 22(10):1386-93. PubMed ID: 16176201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Limited evidence for effects of diet for type 2 diabetes from systematic reviews.
van de Laar FA; Akkermans RP; van Binsbergen JJ
Eur J Clin Nutr; 2007 Aug; 61(8):929-37. PubMed ID: 17251927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Empirical evaluation showed that the Copas selection model provided a useful summary in 80% of meta-analyses.
Carpenter JR; Schwarzer G; Rücker G; Künstler R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 62(6):624-631.e4. PubMed ID: 19282148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
