112 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28102003)
1. Intervention quality is not routinely assessed in Cochrane systematic reviews of radiation therapy interventions.
Abdul Rahim MR; James ML; Hickey BE
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2017 Oct; 61(5):662-665. PubMed ID: 28102003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
Moseley AM; Elkins MR; Herbert RD; Maher CG; Sherrington C
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1021-30. PubMed ID: 19282144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Impact of deviations in target volume delineation - Time for a new RTQA approach?
Cox S; Cleves A; Clementel E; Miles E; Staffurth J; Gwynne S
Radiother Oncol; 2019 Aug; 137():1-8. PubMed ID: 31039468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials examining the effects of psychotherapeutic interventions versus "no intervention" for acute major depressive disorder and a randomised trial examining the effects of "third wave" cognitive therapy versus mentalization-based treatment for acute major depressive disorder.
Jakobsen JC
Dan Med J; 2014 Oct; 61(10):B4942. PubMed ID: 25283628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
Kelly KD; Travers A; Dorgan M; Slater L; Rowe BH
Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Nov; 38(5):518-26. PubMed ID: 11679863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Mapping the Cochrane evidence for decision making in health care.
El Dib RP; Atallah AN; Andriolo RB
J Eval Clin Pract; 2007 Aug; 13(4):689-92. PubMed ID: 17683315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.
Shea B; Bouter LM; Grimshaw JM; Francis D; Ortiz Z; Wells GA; Tugwell PS; Boers M
J Rheumatol; 2006 Jan; 33(1):9-15. PubMed ID: 16267878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Cochrane EPOC group: closing the gap between quality assurance and organization of care research and front line professionals].
Moja PL; Castelli B; McCauley L; Grilli R; Auxilia F
Ann Ig; 2005; 17(6):585-90. PubMed ID: 16523717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age.
Villas Boas PJ; Spagnuolo RS; Kamegasawa A; Braz LG; Polachini do Valle A; Jorge EC; Yoo HH; Cataneo AJ; Corrêa I; Fukushima FB; do Nascimento P; Módolo NS; Teixeira MS; de Oliveira Vidal EI; Daher SR; El Dib R
J Eval Clin Pract; 2013 Aug; 19(4):633-7. PubMed ID: 22747638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Heterogeneity in search strategies among Cochrane acupuncture reviews: is there room for improvement?
Lui S; Smith EJ; Terplan M
Acupunct Med; 2010 Sep; 28(3):149-53. PubMed ID: 20615852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Global harmonization of quality assurance naming conventions in radiation therapy clinical trials.
Melidis C; Bosch WR; Izewska J; Fidarova E; Zubizarreta E; Ulin K; Ishikura S; Followill D; Galvin J; Haworth A; Besuijen D; Clark CH; Miles E; Aird E; Weber DC; Hurkmans CW; Verellen D
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2014 Dec; 90(5):1242-9. PubMed ID: 25539374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?
Lindsley K; Li T; Ssemanda E; Virgili G; Dickersin K
Ophthalmology; 2016 Apr; 123(4):884-97. PubMed ID: 26804762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
