131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30863898)
1. An overview on the methodological and reporting quality of dose-response meta-analysis on cancer prevention.
Xu C; Liu Y; Zhang C; Kwong JSW; Zhou JG; Ge L; Huang JY; Liu TZ
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol; 2019 May; 145(5):1201-1211. PubMed ID: 30863898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey.
Jia PL; Xu B; Cheng JM; Huang XH; Kwong JSW; Liu Y; Zhang C; Han Y; Xu C
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jul; 19(1):148. PubMed ID: 31307388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reporting quality and statistical analysis of published dose-response meta-analyses was suboptimal: a cross-sectional literature survey.
Jiang Q; Liu Q; Chen F; Zeng X; Song F; Lu Z; Cao S
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Nov; 115():133-140. PubMed ID: 31326542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey.
Xu C; Cheng LL; Liu Y; Jia PL; Gao MY; Zhang C
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):78. PubMed ID: 30975073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey.
Xu C; Liu TZ; Jia PL; Liu Y; Li L; Cheng LL; Sun X
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Nov; 18(1):157. PubMed ID: 30497389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations.
Xu C; Liu Y; Jia PL; Li L; Liu TZ; Cheng LL; Deng K; Borhan ASM; Thabane L; Sun X
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Mar; 107():1-11. PubMed ID: 30445166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.
Xia L; Xu J; Guzzo TJ
PeerJ; 2017; 5():e3129. PubMed ID: 28439452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.
Gagnier JJ; Kellam PJ
J Bone Joint Surg Am; 2013 Jun; 95(11):e771-7. PubMed ID: 23780547
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Quality of meta-analyses in major leading orthopedics journals: A systematic review.
Zhi X; Zhang Z; Cui J; Zhai X; Chen X; Su J
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res; 2017 Dec; 103(8):1141-1146. PubMed ID: 28928047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review.
Liu P; Qiu Y; Qian Y; Chen X; Wang Y; Cui J; Zhai X
J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2017 Jan; 32(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 27600190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience.
Maticic K; Krnic Martinic M; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Feb; 19(1):32. PubMed ID: 30764774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study.
Oh JH; Shin WJ; Park S; Chung JS
Korean J Anesthesiol; 2017 Aug; 70(4):446-455. PubMed ID: 28794841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.
Pastorino R; Milovanovic S; Stojanovic J; Efremov L; Amore R; Boccia S
PLoS One; 2016; 11(5):e0154217. PubMed ID: 27167982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bigna JJ; Um LN; Nansseu JR
Syst Rev; 2016 Oct; 5(1):174. PubMed ID: 27737710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.
Page MJ; Moher D
Syst Rev; 2017 Dec; 6(1):263. PubMed ID: 29258593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist.
Tokalić R; Viđak M; Buljan I; Marušić A
Implement Sci; 2018 Oct; 13(1):135. PubMed ID: 30373610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals.
Chapman SJ; Drake TM; Bolton WS; Barnard J; Bhangu A
Br J Surg; 2017 Feb; 104(3):198-204. PubMed ID: 28001294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
