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.
2458 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30453902)
21. The impact of Cochrane Reviews: a mixed-methods evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the National Institute for Health Research. Bunn F; Trivedi D; Alderson P; Hamilton L; Martin A; Pinkney E; Iliffe S Health Technol Assess; 2015 Apr; 19(28):1-99, v-vi. PubMed ID: 25875129 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine. Sargeant JM; O'Connor AM Front Vet Sci; 2020; 7():11. PubMed ID: 32047759 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Ballard M; Montgomery P Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):92-108. PubMed ID: 28074553 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Methods for the health technology assessment of complex interventions: a protocol for a scoping review. Baghbanian A; Merlin T; Carter D; Wang S BMJ Open; 2020 Nov; 10(11):e039263. PubMed ID: 33257482 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. Khalil H; Peters MD; Tricco AC; Pollock D; Alexander L; McInerney P; Godfrey CM; Munn Z J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Feb; 130():156-160. PubMed ID: 33122034 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Gates M; Gates A; Guitard S; Pollock M; Hartling L Syst Rev; 2020 Nov; 9(1):254. PubMed ID: 33148319 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Differentiating between mapping reviews and scoping reviews in the evidence synthesis ecosystem. Khalil H; Tricco AC J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Sep; 149():175-182. PubMed ID: 35636593 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources. Alexander L; Cooper K; Peters MDJ; Tricco AC; Khalil H; Evans C; Munn Z; Pieper D; Godfrey CM; McInerney P; Pollock D J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Jun; 170():111343. PubMed ID: 38582403 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide. Johnston A; Kelly SE; Hsieh SC; Skidmore B; Wells GA J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Apr; 108():64-76. PubMed ID: 30529647 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Practical Guidance for Knowledge Synthesis: Scoping Review Methods. Lockwood C; Dos Santos KB; Pap R Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci); 2019 Dec; 13(5):287-294. PubMed ID: 31756513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Optimising the process for conducting scoping reviews. Pawliuk C; Brown HL; Widger K; Dewan T; Hermansen AM; Grégoire MC; Steele R; Siden HH BMJ Evid Based Med; 2021 Dec; 26(6):312. PubMed ID: 33087454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. Munn Z; Stern C; Aromataris E; Lockwood C; Jordan Z BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jan; 18(1):5. PubMed ID: 29316881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Managing and Coding References for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews in EndNote. Peters MD Med Ref Serv Q; 2017; 36(1):19-31. PubMed ID: 28112629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews in medical literature: a scoping review. Penedones A; Alves C; Batel-Marques F BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Dec; 19(1):234. PubMed ID: 31829132 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]