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.
792 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]