799 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18728102)
1. Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders.
Bereza BG; Machado M; Einarson TR
Ann Pharmacother; 2008 Oct; 42(10):1402-9. PubMed ID: 18728102
[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. Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder.
Hemels ME; Vicente C; Sadri H; Masson MJ; Einarson TR
Curr Med Res Opin; 2004 Apr; 20(4):477-84. PubMed ID: 15119985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.
Delaney A; Bagshaw SM; Ferland A; Manns B; Laupland KB; Doig CJ
Crit Care; 2005 Oct; 9(5):R575-82. PubMed ID: 16277721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM Statement].
Moher D; Cook DJ; Eastwood S; Olkin I; Rennie D; Stroup DF
Rev Esp Salud Publica; 2000; 74(2):107-18. PubMed ID: 10918802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. QUOROM Group.
Moher D; Cook DJ; Eastwood S; Olkin I; Rennie D; Stroup DF
Br J Surg; 2000 Nov; 87(11):1448-54. PubMed ID: 11091231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study.
Wen J; Ren Y; Wang L; Li Y; Liu Y; Zhou M; Liu P; Ye L; Li Y; Tian W
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):770-5. PubMed ID: 18411041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
Shea B; Bouter LM; Grimshaw JM; Francis D; Ortiz Z; Wells GA; Tugwell PS; Boers M
J Rheumatol; 2006 Jan; 33(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 16267878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?
Poolman RW; Struijs PA; Krips R; Sierevelt IN; Lutz KH; Bhandari M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Sep; 6():44. PubMed ID: 16965628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.
Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J
Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Improvement in the quality of randomized controlled trials among general anesthesiology journals 2000 to 2006: a 6-year follow-up.
Greenfield ML; Mhyre JM; Mashour GA; Blum JM; Yen EC; Rosenberg AL
Anesth Analg; 2009 Jun; 108(6):1916-21. PubMed ID: 19448222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Psychological treatment of social anxiety disorder: a meta-analysis.
Acarturk C; Cuijpers P; van Straten A; de Graaf R
Psychol Med; 2009 Feb; 39(2):241-54. PubMed ID: 18507874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. N-acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: publication bias perpetuated by meta-analyses.
Vaitkus PT; Brar C
Am Heart J; 2007 Feb; 153(2):275-80. PubMed ID: 17239689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Empirical assessment suggests that existing evidence could be used more fully in designing randomized controlled trials.
Goudie AC; Sutton AJ; Jones DR; Donald A
J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Sep; 63(9):983-91. PubMed ID: 20573483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Do orthopaedic journals provide high-quality evidence for clinical practice?
Kiter E; Karatosun V; Günal I
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2003 Apr; 123(2-3):82-5. PubMed ID: 12721685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Estimates of quality and reliability with the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions.
Foley NC; Bhogal SK; Teasell RW; Bureau Y; Speechley MR
Phys Ther; 2006 Jun; 86(6):817-24. PubMed ID: 16737407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results.
Furukawa TA; Barbui C; Cipriani A; Brambilla P; Watanabe N
J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Jan; 59(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 16360555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility.
Dias S; McNamee R; Vail A
Hum Reprod; 2006 Oct; 21(10):2617-27. PubMed ID: 16793995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
