581 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19128939)
1. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort.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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist.
Tricco AC; Pham B; Brehaut J; Tetroe J; Cappelli M; Hopewell S; Lavis JN; Berlin JA; Moher D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Jun; 62(6):617-623.e5. PubMed ID: 19162440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Review articles and publication bias.
Kleijnen J; Knipschild P
Arzneimittelforschung; 1992 May; 42(5):587-91. PubMed ID: 1388359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses.
Hart B; Lundh A; Bero L
BMJ; 2012 Jan; 344():d7202. PubMed ID: 22214754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. [Systematic reviews on infectious diseases. The Cochrane Collaboration].
Bonfill X; Martí J
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin; 1999; 17 Suppl 2():15-21. PubMed ID: 10605185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Increased number of systematic reviews in the Netherlands in the period 1991-2000].
Grootens KP; Assendelft WJ; Overbeke AJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2003 Nov; 147(45):2226-30. PubMed ID: 14640061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Do clinical experts rely on the Cochrane library?
Grimes DA; Hou MY; Lopez LM; Nanda K
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Feb; 111(2 Pt 1):420-2. PubMed ID: 18238981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The number, content, and quality of randomized controlled trials in the prevention and care of injuries.
Stelfox HT; Goverman J
J Trauma; 2008 Dec; 65(6):1488-93. PubMed ID: 19077647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008.
MacDonald SL; Canfield SE; Fesperman SF; Dahm P
J Urol; 2010 Aug; 184(2):648-53. PubMed ID: 20639030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The evidence for nursing interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Mistiaen P; Poot E; Hickox S; Wagner C
Nurse Res; 2004; 12(2):71-80. PubMed ID: 15636007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Handsearching for randomized controlled clinical trials in German medical journals].
Blümle A; Antes G
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Feb; 133(6):230-4. PubMed ID: 18236347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
