133 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30045836)
1. Was it a good idea to combine the studies? Why clinicians should care about heterogeneity when making decisions based on systematic reviews.
Grindem H; Mansournia MA; Øiestad BE; Ardern CL
Br J Sports Med; 2019 Apr; 53(7):399-401. PubMed ID: 30045836
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Systematic Reviews in Sports Medicine.
DiSilvestro KJ; Tjoumakaris FP; Maltenfort MG; Spindler KP; Freedman KB
Am J Sports Med; 2016 Feb; 44(2):533-8. PubMed ID: 25899433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Identifying the 'incredible'! Part 1: assessing the risk of bias in outcomes included in systematic reviews.
Büttner F; Winters M; Delahunt E; Elbers R; Lura CB; Khan KM; Weir A; Ardern CL
Br J Sports Med; 2020 Jul; 54(13):798-800. PubMed ID: 31871015
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Synthesising 'best evidence
Ardern CL; Winters M
Br J Sports Med; 2018 Aug; 52(15):948-949. PubMed ID: 28735285
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Trusting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: all that glitters is not gold!
Weir A; Rabia S; Ardern C
Br J Sports Med; 2016 Sep; 50(18):1100-1. PubMed ID: 26968215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Should this systematic review and meta-analysis change my practice? Part 1: exploring treatment effect and trustworthiness.
Travers MJ; Murphy MC; Debenham JR; Chivers P; Bulsara MK; Bagg MK; Palsson TS; Gibson W
Br J Sports Med; 2019 Dec; 53(23):1488-1492. PubMed ID: 30962182
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. "No way Jose!" Clinicians must have authority over patient care: the manager's scope of practice does not cover medical decisions.
O'Neill LA
Br J Sports Med; 2016 Mar; 50(5):259. PubMed ID: 26626264
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Should this systematic review and meta-analysis change my practice? Part 2: exploring the role of the comparator, diversity, risk of bias and confidence.
Travers MJ; Murphy MC; Debenham JR; Chivers P; Bulsara MK; Bagg MK; Palsson TS; Gibson W
Br J Sports Med; 2019 Dec; 53(23):1493-1497. PubMed ID: 30962181
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Identifying the 'incredible'! Part 2: Spot the difference - a rigorous risk of bias assessment can alter the main findings of a systematic review.
Büttner F; Winters M; Delahunt E; Elbers R; Lura CB; Khan KM; Weir A; Ardern CL
Br J Sports Med; 2020 Jul; 54(13):801-808. PubMed ID: 31871014
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The Limitations of Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses in Sport Science.
Boullosa D; Behm D; Del Rosso S; Schumann M; Doma K; Foster C
Int J Sports Physiol Perform; 2024 Jun; 19(6):517-518. PubMed ID: 38663854
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Distinguishing between causal and non-causal associations: implications for sports medicine clinicians.
Stovitz SD; Verhagen E; Shrier I
Br J Sports Med; 2019 Apr; 53(7):398-399. PubMed ID: 29162620
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Unravelling confusion in sports medicine and sports science practice: a systematic approach to using the best of research and practice-based evidence to make a quality decision.
Ardern CL; Dupont G; Impellizzeri FM; O'Driscoll G; Reurink G; Lewin C; McCall A
Br J Sports Med; 2019 Jan; 53(1):50-56. PubMed ID: 28818957
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Overviews of systematic reviews in sports and exercise medicine: what are they and why are they important?
Martínez-Calderon J
Br J Sports Med; 2023 Aug; 57(16):1005-1006. PubMed ID: 37085325
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. When is a study result important for athletes, clinicians and team coaches/staff?
Nielsen RO; Bertelsen ML; Verhagen E; Mansournia MA; Hulme A; Møller M; Casals M
Br J Sports Med; 2017 Oct; 51(20):1454-1455. PubMed ID: 28512189
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Return to play in elite sport: a shared decision-making process.
Dijkstra HP; Pollock N; Chakraverty R; Ardern CL
Br J Sports Med; 2017 Mar; 51(5):419-420. PubMed ID: 27474390
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The team physician and the return-to-play decision: a consensus statement-2012 update.
Herring SA; Kibler WB; Putukian M
Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2012 Dec; 44(12):2446-8. PubMed ID: 23160348
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: protocol for a systematic review.
Daly R; Bunn F; Goodman C
BMJ Open; 2016 Nov; 6(11):e012955. PubMed ID: 27807088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Different interventions, same outcomes? Here are four good reasons.
Cook CE; George SZ; Keefe F
Br J Sports Med; 2018 Aug; 52(15):951-952. PubMed ID: 29449207
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Transplantation: Challenges and Pitfalls?
Wong G; Sharma A; Teixeira-Pinto A; Howell M
Transplantation; 2018 Sep; 102(9):1415-1418. PubMed ID: 30124633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.
Rinchuse DJ; Rinchuse DJ; Kandasamy S; Ackerman MB
World J Orthod; 2008; 9(2):167-76. PubMed ID: 18575311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
