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.
330 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22959594)
1. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. Pieper D; Buechter R; Jerinic P; Eikermann M J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Dec; 65(12):1267-73. PubMed ID: 22959594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Overviews - status quo, potentials and perspectives]. Pieper D; Büchter RB; Antoine SL; Eikermann M Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes; 2013; 107(9-10):592-6. PubMed ID: 24315329 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012-2016: protocol for a systematic review. Pieper D; Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Büchter RB; Hartling L Syst Rev; 2017 Apr; 6(1):73. PubMed ID: 28388960 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data. Lunny C; Brennan SE; Reid J; McDonald S; McKenzie JE J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Feb; 118():69-85. PubMed ID: 31606430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Becker LA; Featherstone R; Hartling L Syst Rev; 2016 Nov; 5(1):190. PubMed ID: 27842604 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A review found heterogeneous approaches and insufficient reporting in overviews on adverse events. Sachse T; Mathes T; Dorando E; Heß S; Thürmann P; Schmiedl S; Kanji S; Lunny C; Thabet P; Pieper D J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Nov; 151():104-112. PubMed ID: 35987405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quality and transparency of overviews of systematic reviews. Li L; Tian J; Tian H; Sun R; Liu Y; Yang K J Evid Based Med; 2012 Aug; 5(3):166-73. PubMed ID: 23672223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. Hartling L; Chisholm A; Thomson D; Dryden DM PLoS One; 2012; 7(11):e49667. PubMed ID: 23166744 [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. Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review. Pieper D; Antoine SL; Neugebauer EA; Eikermann M J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Dec; 67(12):1302-8. PubMed ID: 25281222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. Yang M; Jiang L; Wang A; Xu G Int J Nurs Pract; 2017 Feb; 23(1):. PubMed ID: 28004476 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Overviews of reviews in the cardiovascular field underreported critical methodological and transparency characteristics: a methodological study based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement. Pamporis K; Bougioukas KI; Karakasis P; Papageorgiou D; Zarifis I; Haidich AB J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Jul; 159():139-150. PubMed ID: 37245702 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Pieper D; Antoine SL; Mathes T; Neugebauer EA; Eikermann M J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Apr; 67(4):368-75. PubMed ID: 24581293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. Gagnier JJ; Kellam PJ J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2013 Jun; 95(11):e771-7. PubMed ID: 23780547 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. Zeng X; Zhang Y; Kwong JS; Zhang C; Li S; Sun F; Niu Y; Du L J Evid Based Med; 2015 Feb; 8(1):2-10. PubMed ID: 25594108 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions. Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Aguilar-Luque M; Alcalde-Mellado P; Gay-Mimbrera J; Hernández-Romero JL; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Maestre-López B; González-Padilla M; Carmona-Fernández PJ; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):180. PubMed ID: 29284417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. Zhang J; Wang J; Han L; Zhang F; Cao J; Ma Y Nurs Outlook; 2015; 63(4):446-455.e4. PubMed ID: 26187084 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews: protocol for a systematic methodological review. Gutierrez-Arias R; Pieper D; Lunny C; Torres-Castro R; Aguilera-Eguía R; Seron P BMJ Open; 2023 Apr; 13(4):e069906. PubMed ID: 37080626 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Ballard M; Montgomery P Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):92-108. PubMed ID: 28074553 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Most overviews of Cochrane reviews neglected potential biases from dual authorship. Büchter RB; Pieper D J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Sep; 77():91-94. PubMed ID: 27131430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]