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.
125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27485711)
21. Conducting systematic reviews of economic evaluations. Gomersall JS; Jadotte YT; Xue Y; Lockwood S; Riddle D; Preda A Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2015 Sep; 13(3):170-8. PubMed ID: 26288063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric nutrition. Szajewska H World Rev Nutr Diet; 2013; 108():1-10. PubMed ID: 24029781 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. Weir MC; Grimshaw JM; Mayhew A; Fergusson D J Clin Epidemiol; 2012 Jul; 65(7):756-63. PubMed ID: 22498429 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Jadad AR; Cook DJ; Browman GP CMAJ; 1997 May; 156(10):1411-6. PubMed ID: 9164400 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Randomized controlled trials and challenge trials: design and criterion for validity. Sargeant JM; Kelton DF; O'Connor AM Zoonoses Public Health; 2014 Jun; 61 Suppl 1():18-27. PubMed ID: 24905993 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany. Bekkering GE; Kleijnen J Eur J Health Econ; 2008 Nov; 9 Suppl 1():5-29. PubMed ID: 18987905 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Expanded review criteria: the case of nonpharmacological interventions in dementia. Cohen-Mansfield J; Buckwalter K; Beattie E; Rose K; Neville C; Kolanowski A J Alzheimers Dis; 2014; 41(1):15-28. PubMed ID: 24577481 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The evidence for nursing interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Mistiaen P; Poot E; Hickox S; Wagner C Nurse Res; 2004; 12(2):71-80. PubMed ID: 15636007 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design. Lunny C; Brennan SE; McDonald S; McKenzie JE Syst Rev; 2016 Jan; 5():4. PubMed ID: 26739283 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature. Breau RH; Gaboury I; Scales CD; Fesperman SF; Watterson JD; Dahm P J Urol; 2010 May; 183(5):1693-7. PubMed ID: 20299044 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy. Hartling L; Bond K; Santaguida PL; Viswanathan M; Dryden DM J Clin Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 64(8):861-71. PubMed ID: 21531537 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Inclusion of quasi-experimental studies in systematic reviews of health systems research. Rockers PC; Røttingen JA; Shemilt I; Tugwell P; Bärnighausen T Health Policy; 2015 Apr; 119(4):511-21. PubMed ID: 25776033 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Designing phase II trials in cancer: a systematic review and guidance. Brown SR; Gregory WM; Twelves CJ; Buyse M; Collinson F; Parmar M; Seymour MT; Brown JM Br J Cancer; 2011 Jul; 105(2):194-9. PubMed ID: 21712822 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 12: strengthening global capacity for evidence synthesis of quasi-experimental health systems research. Rockers PC; Tugwell P; Grimshaw J; Oliver S; Atun R; Røttingen JA; Fretheim A; Ranson MK; Daniels K; Luiza VL; Bärnighausen T J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Sep; 89():98-105. PubMed ID: 28363733 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. A need for an augmented review when reviewing rehabilitation research. Gerber LH; Nava A; Garfinkel S; Goel D; Weinstein AA; Cai C Disabil Health J; 2016 Oct; 9(4):559-66. PubMed ID: 27522302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews. Hopayian K BMJ; 2001 Sep; 323(7314):681-4. PubMed ID: 11566835 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Improving the evidence-base in surgery: evaluating surgical effectiveness. Young JM; Solomon MJ ANZ J Surg; 2003 Jul; 73(7):507-10. PubMed ID: 12864826 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]