326 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23683848)
1. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers.
Hartling L; Milne A; Hamm MP; Vandermeer B; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Dryden DM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):982-93. PubMed ID: 23683848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers.
Pieper D; Jacobs A; Weikert B; Fishta A; Wegewitz U
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Jul; 17(1):98. PubMed ID: 28693497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments.
Lo CK; Mertz D; Loeb M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2014 Apr; 14():45. PubMed ID: 24690082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.
Hartling L; Hamm MP; Milne A; Vandermeer B; Santaguida PL; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Hempel S; Shekelle P; Dryden DM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):973-81. PubMed ID: 22981249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reliability and validity of three quality rating instruments for systematic reviews of observational studies.
Hootman JM; Driban JB; Sitler MR; Harris KP; Cattano NM
Res Synth Methods; 2011 Jun; 2(2):110-8. PubMed ID: 26061679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Interrater reliability in assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies using the QUADAS tool. A preliminary assessment.
Hollingworth W; Medina LS; Lenkinski RE; Shibata DK; Bernal B; Zurakowski D; Comstock B; Jarvik JG
Acad Radiol; 2006 Jul; 13(7):803-10. PubMed ID: 16777553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa Scales.
Oremus M; Oremus C; Hall GB; McKinnon MC;
BMJ Open; 2012; 2(4):. PubMed ID: 22855629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The ROBINS-I and the NOS had similar reliability but differed in applicability: A random sampling observational studies of systematic reviews/meta-analysis.
Zhang Y; Huang L; Wang D; Ren P; Hong Q; Kang D
J Evid Based Med; 2021 May; 14(2):112-122. PubMed ID: 34002466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.
Armijo-Olivo S; Ospina M; da Costa BR; Egger M; Saltaji H; Fuentes J; Ha C; Cummings GG
PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e96920. PubMed ID: 24824199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Bilandzic A; Fitzpatrick T; Rosella L; Henry D
PLoS Med; 2016 Apr; 13(4):e1001987. PubMed ID: 27046153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Inter-rater reliability and validity of risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: a study protocol.
Jeyaraman MM; Al-Yousif N; Robson RC; Copstein L; Balijepalli C; Hofer K; Fazeli MS; Ansari MT; Tricco AC; Rabbani R; Abou-Setta AM
Syst Rev; 2020 Feb; 9(1):32. PubMed ID: 32051035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reliability of Observational Assessment Methods for Outcome-based Assessment of Surgical Skill: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses.
Groenier M; Brummer L; Bunting BP; Gallagher AG
J Surg Educ; 2020; 77(1):189-201. PubMed ID: 31444148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
Shea BJ; Hamel C; Wells GA; Bouter LM; Kristjansson E; Grimshaw J; Henry DA; Boers M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1013-20. PubMed ID: 19230606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. No clear choice between Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies to assess methodological quality in cross-sectional studies of health-related quality of life and breast cancer.
Moskalewicz A; Oremus M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 120():94-103. PubMed ID: 31866469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reproducibility of the STARD checklist: an instrument to assess the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Smidt N; Rutjes AW; van der Windt DA; Ostelo RW; Bossuyt PM; Reitsma JB; Bouter LM; de Vet HC
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2006 Mar; 6():12. PubMed ID: 16539705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies.
Kennedy CE; Fonner VA; Armstrong KA; Denison JA; Yeh PT; O'Reilly KR; Sweat MD
Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):3. PubMed ID: 30606262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I: protocol for a cross-sectional study.
Jeyaraman MM; Rabbani R; Al-Yousif N; Robson RC; Copstein L; Xia J; Pollock M; Mansour S; Ansari MT; Tricco AC; Abou-Setta AM
Syst Rev; 2020 Jan; 9(1):12. PubMed ID: 31931871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Is inter-rater reliability of Global Trigger Tool results altered when members of the review team are replaced?
Mevik K; Griffin FA; Hansen TE; Deilkås E; Vonen B
Int J Qual Health Care; 2016 Sep; 28(4):492-6. PubMed ID: 27283442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
