167 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25577327)
21. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned.
Silagy CA; Middleton P; Hopewell S
JAMA; 2002 Jun; 287(21):2831-4. PubMed ID: 12038926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue three for 2004 of The Cochrane Library.
Wiffen PJ
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother; 2005; 19(1):63-5. PubMed ID: 15814517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol.
Andersen MZ; Gülen S; Fonnes S; Andresen K; Rosenberg J
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Aug; 124():85-93. PubMed ID: 32413390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments.
Harker J; Kleijnen J
Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2012 Dec; 10(4):397-410. PubMed ID: 23173665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool.
Martimbianco ALC; Sá KMM; Santos GM; Santos EM; Pacheco RL; Riera R
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992); 2023; 69(3):469-472. PubMed ID: 36820779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: methodological approaches to evaluate the literature and establish best evidence.
Skelly AC; Hashimoto RE; Norvell DC; Dettori JR; Fischer DJ; Wilson JR; Tetreault LA; Fehlings MG
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Oct; 38(22 Suppl 1):S9-18. PubMed ID: 24026148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions, According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation.
Levack WMM; Rathore FA; Pollet J; Negrini S
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2019 Aug; 100(8):1492-1498. PubMed ID: 30831091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology: is the best evidence being used?
Conde-Taboada A; Aranegui B; García-Doval I; Dávila-Seijo P; González-Castro U
Actas Dermosifiliogr; 2014 Apr; 105(3):295-9. PubMed ID: 24661956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Evidence-based pain management and palliative care in issue two for 2004 of the Cochrane Library.
Wiffen PJ
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother; 2004; 18(4):89-94. PubMed ID: 15760813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction.
Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Dosenovic S; Sapunar D; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Jun; 74():119-23. PubMed ID: 26780258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Evidence based evaluation of immuno-coagulatory interventions in critical care.
Afshari A
Dan Med Bull; 2011 Sep; 58(9):B4316. PubMed ID: 21893014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
Büchter RB; Weise A; Pieper D
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):240. PubMed ID: 34742231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [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]
34. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination.
Remschmidt C; Wichmann O; Harder T
Vaccine; 2014 Mar; 32(15):1678-84. PubMed ID: 24513008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey.
Runjic E; Behmen D; Pieper D; Mathes T; Tricco AC; Moher D; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Jul; 111():41-48. PubMed ID: 30928507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. Overall bias methods and their use in sensitivity analysis of Cochrane reviews were not consistent.
Babic A; Vuka I; Saric F; Proloscic I; Slapnicar E; Cavar J; Poklepovic Pericic T; Pieper D; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Mar; 119():57-64. PubMed ID: 31734347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Comparison of Reporting and Transparency in Published Protocols and Publications in Umbrella Reviews: Scoping Review.
Zhao L; Shen C; Liu M; Zhang J; Cheng L; Li Y; Yuan L; Zhang J; Tian J
J Med Internet Res; 2023 Aug; 25():e43299. PubMed ID: 37531172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews.
Leeflang MM; Deeks JJ; Takwoingi Y; Macaskill P
Syst Rev; 2013 Oct; 2():82. PubMed ID: 24099098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews.
Eshun-Wilson I; Jaffer S; Smith R; Johnson S; Hine P; Mateo A; Stephani AM; Garner P
Syst Rev; 2019 Feb; 8(1):46. PubMed ID: 30732644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
