These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
2. 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]
3. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. Leibovici L; Reeves D J Antimicrob Chemother; 2005 Nov; 56(5):803-4. PubMed ID: 16166177 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: complementary roles for systematic and nonsystematic reviews. Cook DA Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract; 2008 Nov; 13(4):391-5. PubMed ID: 18850297 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Critical appraisal for emergency medicine: 6 systematic reviews. Goodacre S Emerg Med J; 2009 Feb; 26(2):114-6. PubMed ID: 19164622 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
9. General principles for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and a critique of a recent systematic review of long-acting beta-agonists. Chinchilli VM J Allergy Clin Immunol; 2007 Feb; 119(2):303-6. PubMed ID: 17291850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. Tricco AC; Tetzlaff J; Pham B; Brehaut J; Moher D J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 62(4):380-386.e1. PubMed ID: 19128940 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of publication bias for the surgeon scientist. Mahid SS; Qadan M; Hornung CA; Galandiuk S Br J Surg; 2008 Aug; 95(8):943-9. PubMed ID: 18618864 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Some limiting factors in meta-analysis. Bangert-Drowns RL NIDA Res Monogr; 1997; 170():234-52. PubMed ID: 9154261 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Gynaecologists blaze the trail in primary studies and systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Johnson NP; Khan KS Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2009 Feb; 49(1):71-6. PubMed ID: 19281584 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. Terrin N; Schmid CH; Lau J J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Sep; 58(9):894-901. PubMed ID: 16085192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Moseley AM; Elkins MR; Herbert RD; Maher CG; Sherrington C J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1021-30. PubMed ID: 19282144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. How to write a systematic review. Wright RW; Brand RA; Dunn W; Spindler KP Clin Orthop Relat Res; 2007 Feb; 455():23-9. PubMed ID: 17279036 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]