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.
9. 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]
10. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Munn Z; Moola S; Lisy K; Riitano D; Tufanaru C Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):147-53. PubMed ID: 26317388 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Moving from evidence to developing recommendations in guidelines: article 11 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Schünemann HJ; Oxman AD; Akl EA; Brozek JL; Montori VM; Heffner J; Hill S; Woodhead M; Campos-Outcalt D; Alderson P; Woitalla T; Puhan MA; Falck-Ytter Y; Bousquet J; Guyatt G; Proc Am Thorac Soc; 2012 Dec; 9(5):282-92. PubMed ID: 23256172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center methods provide guidance on prioritization and selection of harms in systematic reviews. Chou R; Baker WL; Bañez LL; Iyer S; Myers ER; Newberry S; Pincock L; Robinson KA; Sardenga L; Sathe N; Springs S; Wilt TJ J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jun; 98():98-104. PubMed ID: 29409913 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An approach to addressing subpopulation considerations in systematic reviews: the experience of reviewers supporting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Whitlock EP; Eder M; Thompson JH; Jonas DE; Evans CV; Guirguis-Blake JM; Lin JS Syst Rev; 2017 Mar; 6(1):41. PubMed ID: 28253915 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. Bender R; Bunce C; Clarke M; Gates S; Lange S; Pace NL; Thorlund K J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Sep; 61(9):857-65. PubMed ID: 18687287 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. Munn Z; Peters MDJ; Stern C; Tufanaru C; McArthur A; Aromataris E BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Nov; 18(1):143. PubMed ID: 30453902 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Recommendations for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. Viswanathan M; Patnode CD; Berkman ND; Bass EB; Chang S; Hartling L; Murad MH; Treadwell JR; Kane RL J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 May; 97():26-34. PubMed ID: 29248724 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Manchikanti L Pain Physician; 2008; 11(2):161-86. PubMed ID: 18354710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]