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.
254 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22624781)
21. Systematic reviews: the case for rigorous methods and rigorous reporting. Cook D Can J Anaesth; 1997 Apr; 44(4):350-3. PubMed ID: 9104514 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. [Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews)]. Coenen M; Schuetz GM; Dewey M Rofo; 2013 Sep; 184(10):937-40. PubMed ID: 23999778 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
24. Peer review and the fate of manuscripts. Frey JJ Fam Med; 1985; 17(1):3. PubMed ID: 3843084 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. The evidence base of taming continuously proliferating evidence. Knottnerus JA; Tugwell P J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Dec; 65(12):1241-2. PubMed ID: 23083676 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. New committee to oversee relationship between CMA, CMAJ. Sullivan P CMAJ; 2003 Feb; 168(3):332. PubMed ID: 12566356 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Evaluating the BMJ guidelines for economic submissions: prospective audit of economic submissions to BMJ and The Lancet. Jefferson T; Smith R; Yee Y; Drummond M; Pratt M; Gale R JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):275-7. PubMed ID: 9676680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting. McInnes M; Tunis AS Radiology; 2014 Jul; 272(1):303-4. PubMed ID: 24956054 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. [The PRISMA Statement - what should be reported about systematic reviews?]. Antes G; von Elm E Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2009 Aug; 134(33):1619. PubMed ID: 19650021 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Quality control in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Bown MJ; Sutton AJ Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg; 2010 Nov; 40(5):669-77. PubMed ID: 20732826 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. The randomised controlled trial to meta-analysis ratio: original data versus systematic reviews in the medical literature. Bolland MJ; Grey A; Reid IR N Z Med J; 2007 Nov; 120(1265):U2804. PubMed ID: 18264184 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. [Evaluating the methodologic quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews]. Coenen M; Schuetz GM; Dewey M Rofo; 2013 Oct; 185(10):937-40. PubMed ID: 24490255 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Randomised controlled trial to meta-analysis ratio: a reply from a group producing systematic reviews. Weir R; Bidwell S N Z Med J; 2007 Nov; 120(1266):U2843. PubMed ID: 18264210 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Veterinary pathology and peer review. Cantor GH; Caswell JL; Crissman JW; Gillette DM; Gunson DE; Hogenesch H; Kiupel M; Mense MG; Miller MA; Rush LJ; Leger JA; Schoeb TR; Sellers RS; Sills RC; Swayne DE; Thomas HC; Ward JM; Alden CL Vet Pathol; 2009 Mar; 46(2):173-5. PubMed ID: 19261628 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]