1179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29739339)
1. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting.
Pieper D; Koensgen N; Breuing J; Ge L; Wegewitz U
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jun; 18(1):56. PubMed ID: 29914386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement - a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools.
Bühn S; Ober P; Mathes T; Wegewitz U; Jacobs A; Pieper D
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Mar; 21(1):51. PubMed ID: 33706710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.
Gates A; Gates M; Duarte G; Cary M; Becker M; Prediger B; Vandermeer B; Fernandes RM; Pieper D; Hartling L
Syst Rev; 2018 Jun; 7(1):85. PubMed ID: 29898777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain.
Riado Minguez D; Kowalski M; Vallve Odena M; Longin Pontzen D; Jelicic Kadic A; Jeric M; Dosenovic S; Jakus D; Vrdoljak M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Sapunar D; Puljak L
Anesth Analg; 2017 Oct; 125(4):1348-1354. PubMed ID: 28678074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings.
Sun X; Zhou X; Zhang Y; Liu H
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2019 May; 51(3):308-316. PubMed ID: 30806019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.
Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
Syst Rev; 2017 Jul; 6(1):131. PubMed ID: 28720117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR.
Wu X; Sun H; Zhou X; Wang J; Li J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Mar; 18(1):30. PubMed ID: 29548276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality.
Sharma S; Oremus M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jul; 99():123-131. PubMed ID: 29654821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Methodological quality and risk of bias in orthodontic systematic reviews using AMSTAR and ROBIS.
Hooper EJ; Pandis N; Cobourne MT; Seehra J
Eur J Orthod; 2021 Oct; 43(5):544-550. PubMed ID: 33723612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies.
Pieper D; Puljak L; González-Lorenzo M; Minozzi S
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Apr; 108():26-33. PubMed ID: 30543911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain.
Dosenovic S; Dujmic A; Nujic D; Vuka I; Tintor G; Kadic AJ; Puljak L
J Comp Eff Res; 2021 Jan; 10(1):67-75. PubMed ID: 33355481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment.
Belloti JC; Okamura A; Scheeren J; Faloppa F; Ynoe de Moraes V
PLoS One; 2019; 14(1):e0206895. PubMed ID: 30673700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Hartling L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):48. PubMed ID: 28335734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A flood tide of systematic reviews on endodontic posts: methodological assessment using of R-AMSTAR.
Schmitter M; Sterzenbach G; Faggion CM; Krastl G
Clin Oral Investig; 2013 Jun; 17(5):1287-94. PubMed ID: 23436119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis.
Liu D; Jin J; Tian J; Yang K
PLoS One; 2015; 10(4):e0120911. PubMed ID: 25905713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.
Chung VCH; Wu XY; Feng Y; Ho RST; Wong SYS; Threapleton D
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci; 2018 Dec; 27(6):619-627. PubMed ID: 28462754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.
Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Aguilar-Luque M; Alcalde-Mellado P; Gay-Mimbrera J; Hernández-Romero JL; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Maestre-López B; González-Padilla M; Carmona-Fernández PJ; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):180. PubMed ID: 29284417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.
Superchi C; González JA; Solà I; Cobo E; Hren D; Boutron I
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):48. PubMed ID: 30841850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
Ross A; Rankin J; Beaman J; Murray K; Sinnett P; Riddle R; Haskins J; Vassar M
PLoS One; 2017; 12(8):e0181927. PubMed ID: 28771633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
