376 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19162440)
1. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist.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]
2. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort.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]
3. [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]
4. An e-mail survey identified unpublished studies for systematic reviews.
Reveiz L; Cardona AF; Ospina EG; de Agular S
J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Jul; 59(7):755-8. PubMed ID: 16765280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Review articles and publication bias.
Kleijnen J; Knipschild P
Arzneimittelforschung; 1992 May; 42(5):587-91. PubMed ID: 1388359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster.
Sampson M; Shojania KG; Garritty C; Horsley T; Ocampo M; Moher D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):531-6. PubMed ID: 18471656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Publication of reviews synthesizing child health evidence (PORSCHE): a survey of authors to identify factors associated with publication in Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources.
Hartling L; Shave K; Thomson D; Fernandes RM; Wingert A; Williams K
Syst Rev; 2016 Jun; 5(1):104. PubMed ID: 27328935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics.
Livas C; Pandis N; Ren Y
Eur J Orthod; 2015 Apr; 37(2):183-7. PubMed ID: 25052374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study.
Tsujimoto H; Tsujimoto Y; Kataoka Y
BMC Res Notes; 2017 Dec; 10(1):703. PubMed ID: 29208054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic-related systematic reviews.
Aziz T; Compton S; Nassar U; Matthews D; Ansari K; Flores-Mir C
J Oral Rehabil; 2013 Apr; 40(4):263-78. PubMed ID: 23330989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Statistical significance did not affect time to publication in non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a metaepidemiological study.
Tsujimoto Y; Tsutsumi Y; Kataoka Y; Tsujimoto H; Yamamoto Y; Papola D; Guyatt GH; Fukuhara S; Furukawa TA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Nov; 115():25-34. PubMed ID: 31276781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews.
Hartling L; Featherstone R; Nuspl M; Shave K; Dryden DM; Vandermeer B
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Apr; 17(1):64. PubMed ID: 28420349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation.
Gianola S; Gasparini M; Agostini M; Castellini G; Corbetta D; Gozzer P; Li LC; Sirtori V; Taricco M; Tetzlaff JM; Turolla A; Moher D; Moja L
Phys Ther; 2013 Nov; 93(11):1456-66. PubMed ID: 23744458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Research results should be freely accessible!-- Case reports demonstrate obstacles to contact with drug industry].
Eliasson M; Bergqvist D
Lakartidningen; 2001 Sep; 98(37):3913-6. PubMed ID: 11586830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews.
Bender R; Bunce C; Clarke M; Gates S; Lange S; Pace NL; Thorlund K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Sep; 61(9):857-65. PubMed ID: 18687287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Renal dietitians' self-perceptions on research participation: a pilot study.
Chrencik E; Xu R; Neal T; Steiber A
J Ren Nutr; 2008 Jul; 18(4):389-92. PubMed ID: 18558305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias.
Brito JP; Tsapas A; Griebeler ML; Wang Z; Prutsky GJ; Domecq JP; Murad MH; Montori VM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Jun; 66(6):633-8. PubMed ID: 23510557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
