153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16279149)
1. The use of systematic reviews when designing studies.
Cooper NJ; Jones DR; Sutton AJ
Clin Trials; 2005; 2(3):260-4. PubMed ID: 16279149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) performed well for identifying new studies for updated Cochrane reviews.
Hemens BJ; Haynes RB
J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jan; 65(1):62-72.e1. PubMed ID: 21856121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The science of systematic reviewing studies of diagnostic tests.
Oosterhuis WP; Niessen RW; Bossuyt PM
Clin Chem Lab Med; 2000 Jul; 38(7):577-88. PubMed ID: 11028761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Updated method guidelines for cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses.
Ghogomu EA; Maxwell LJ; Buchbinder R; Rader T; Pardo Pardo J; Johnston RV; Christensen RD; Rutjes AW; Winzenberg TM; Singh JA; Zanoli G; Wells GA; Tugwell P;
J Rheumatol; 2014 Feb; 41(2):194-205. PubMed ID: 24293581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Characteristics of the Cochrane Oral Health Group systematic reviews.
Teich ST; Lang LA; Demko CA
J Dent Educ; 2015 Jan; 79(1):5-15. PubMed ID: 25576547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.
Delaney A; Bagshaw SM; Ferland A; Laupland K; Manns B; Doig C
Crit Care Med; 2007 Feb; 35(2):589-94. PubMed ID: 17205029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry.
Bader J; Ismail A; ; ;
J Am Dent Assoc; 2004 Apr; 135(4):464-73. PubMed ID: 15127870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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. Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.
Ford AC; Guyatt GH; Talley NJ; Moayyedi P
Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Feb; 105(2):280-8. PubMed ID: 19920807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
Moher D; Tetzlaff J; Tricco AC; Sampson M; Altman DG
PLoS Med; 2007 Mar; 4(3):e78. PubMed ID: 17388659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
Windsor B; Popovich I; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar C
Hum Reprod; 2012 Dec; 27(12):3460-6. PubMed ID: 23034152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
French SD; McDonald S; McKenzie JE; Green SE
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2005 Oct; 5():33. PubMed ID: 16225692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. EJPRM systematic continuous update on Cochrane reviews in rehabilitation: news from the 4th Issue 2008.
Zaina F
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med; 2009 Mar; 45(1):93-101. PubMed ID: 19293757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology: is the best evidence being used?
Conde-Taboada A; Aranegui B; García-Doval I; Dávila-Seijo P; González-Castro U
Actas Dermosifiliogr; 2014 Apr; 105(3):295-9. PubMed ID: 24661956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results.
Hopewell S; Wolfenden L; Clarke M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):597-602. PubMed ID: 18411039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort.
van Driel ML; De Sutter A; De Maeseneer J; Christiaens T
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):838-844.e3. PubMed ID: 19128939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence.
Bashir R; Surian D; Dunn AG
Syst Rev; 2018 Nov; 7(1):195. PubMed ID: 30447694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorpororation of results from clinical trial quality assessment.
de Craen AJ; van Vliet HA; Helmerhorst FM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Mar; 58(3):311-3. PubMed ID: 15718121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care.
El Dib RP; Atallah AN; Andriolo RB
J Eval Clin Pract; 2007 Aug; 13(4):689-92. PubMed ID: 17683315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
