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.
117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22424987)
1. Systematic reviews synthesized evidence without consistent quality assessment of primary studies examining epidemiology of chronic diseases. Shamliyan T; Kane RL; Jansen S J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jun; 65(6):610-8. PubMed ID: 22424987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Development quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists. Shamliyan TA; Kane RL; Ansari MT; Raman G; Berkman ND; Grant M; Janes G; Maglione M; Moher D; Nasser M; Robinson KA; Segal JB; Tsouros S J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Jun; 64(6):637-57. PubMed ID: 21071174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Kelly KD; Travers A; Dorgan M; Slater L; Rowe BH Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Nov; 38(5):518-26. PubMed ID: 11679863 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Limited evidence for effects of diet for type 2 diabetes from systematic reviews. van de Laar FA; Akkermans RP; van Binsbergen JJ Eur J Clin Nutr; 2007 Aug; 61(8):929-37. PubMed ID: 17251927 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Manchikanti L Pain Physician; 2008; 11(2):161-86. PubMed ID: 18354710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Doing more harm than good? Do systematic reviews of PET by health technology assessment agencies provide an appraisal of the evidence that is closer to the truth than the primary data supporting its use? Ware RE; Hicks RJ J Nucl Med; 2011 Dec; 52 Suppl 2():64S-73S. PubMed ID: 22144557 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany]. Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2008 Dec; 133 Suppl 7():S225-46. PubMed ID: 19034813 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
13. Systematic reviews incorporating evidence from nonrandomized study designs: reasons for caution when estimating health effects. Reeves BC; van Binsbergen J; van Weel C Eur J Clin Nutr; 2005 Aug; 59 Suppl 1():S155-61. PubMed ID: 16052184 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quality assessment of the methods used in published opioid conversion reviews. Saokaew S; Oderda GM J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother; 2012 Dec; 26(4):341-7. PubMed ID: 23216173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Included in Systematic Reviews)]. Schuetz GM; Tackmann R; Hamm B; Dewey M Rofo; 2010 Nov; 182(11):939-42. PubMed ID: 20922647 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. Shamliyan T; Kane RL; Dickinson S J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 Oct; 63(10):1061-70. PubMed ID: 20728045 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Papageorgiou SN; Papadopoulos MA; Athanasiou AE Orthod Craniofac Res; 2011 Aug; 14(3):116-37. PubMed ID: 21771267 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews. Mallen C; Peat G; Croft P J Clin Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 59(8):765-9. PubMed ID: 16828667 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. Chou R; Aronson N; Atkins D; Ismaila AS; Santaguida P; Smith DH; Whitlock E; Wilt TJ; Moher D J Clin Epidemiol; 2010 May; 63(5):502-12. PubMed ID: 18823754 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Development of a quality-assessment tool for experimental bruxism studies: reliability and validity. Dawson A; Raphael KG; Glaros A; Axelsson S; Arima T; Ernberg M; Farella M; Lobbezoo F; Manfredini D; Michelotti A; Svensson P; List T J Orofac Pain; 2013; 27(2):111-22. PubMed ID: 23630683 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]