82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26093310)
1. Systematic reviews do not comment on applicability for primary care.
Missiou A; Tatsioni A
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Oct; 68(10):1152-60. PubMed ID: 26093310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Spineli LM; Pandis N; Salanti G
Res Synth Methods; 2015 Jun; 6(2):175-87. PubMed ID: 26099485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results.
Hopewell S; Wolfenden L; Clarke M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Jun; 61(6):597-602. PubMed ID: 18411039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Survey of Cochrane protocols found methods for data extraction from figures not mentioned or unclear.
Vucic K; Jelicic Kadic A; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Oct; 68(10):1161-4. PubMed ID: 25577327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.
Windsor B; Popovich I; Jordan V; Showell M; Shea B; Farquhar C
Hum Reprod; 2012 Dec; 27(12):3460-6. PubMed ID: 23034152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses.
Hart B; Lundh A; Bero L
BMJ; 2012 Jan; 344():d7202. PubMed ID: 22214754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Missing binary data extraction challenges from Cochrane reviews in mental health and Campbell reviews with implications for empirical research.
Spineli LM
Res Synth Methods; 2017 Dec; 8(4):514-525. PubMed ID: 28961395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.
Ford AC; Guyatt GH; Talley NJ; Moayyedi P
Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Feb; 105(2):280-8. PubMed ID: 19920807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A meta-epidemiological study to examine the association between bias and treatment effects in neonatal trials.
Bialy L; Vandermeer B; Lacaze-Masmonteil T; Dryden DM; Hartling L
Evid Based Child Health; 2014 Dec; 9(4):1052-9. PubMed ID: 25504975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Assessing the applicability of findings in systematic reviews of complex interventions can enhance the utility of reviews for decision making.
Burford B; Lewin S; Welch V; Rehfuess E; Waters E
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Nov; 66(11):1251-61. PubMed ID: 23953081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Can we rely on the best trial? A comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews.
Glasziou PP; Shepperd S; Brassey J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2010 Mar; 10():23. PubMed ID: 20298582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Pragmatic vs. explanatory: an adaptation of the PRECIS tool helps to judge the applicability of systematic reviews for daily practice.
Koppenaal T; Linmans J; Knottnerus JA; Spigt M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 64(10):1095-101. PubMed ID: 21474282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews.
Page MJ; McKenzie JE; Forbes A
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 May; 66(5):524-37. PubMed ID: 23337785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Assessing applicability when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.
Atkins D; Chang SM; Gartlehner G; Buckley DI; Whitlock EP; Berliner E; Matchar D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Nov; 64(11):1198-207. PubMed ID: 21463926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Applicability and clinical relevance of results in randomized controlled trials: the Cochrane review on exercise therapy for low back pain as an example.
Malmivaara A; Koes BW; Bouter LM; van Tulder MW
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Jun; 31(13):1405-9. PubMed ID: 16741446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Searching for unpublished trials in Cochrane reviews may not be worth the effort.
van Driel ML; De Sutter A; De Maeseneer J; Christiaens T
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Aug; 62(8):838-844.e3. PubMed ID: 19128939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
