299 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30971219)
1. The judgement of biases included in the category "other bias" in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: a systematic survey.
Babic A; Pijuk A; Brázdilová L; Georgieva Y; Raposo Pereira MA; Poklepovic Pericic T; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):77. PubMed ID: 30971219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Risk of bias judgments for random sequence generation in Cochrane systematic reviews were frequently not in line with Cochrane Handbook.
Barcot O; Boric M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Cavar M; Dosenovic S; Vuka I; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Aug; 19(1):170. PubMed ID: 31382898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability.
Babic A; Tokalic R; Amílcar Silva Cunha J; Novak I; Suto J; Vidak M; Miosic I; Vuka I; Poklepovic Pericic T; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Apr; 19(1):76. PubMed ID: 30953448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Risk of bias assessments for selective reporting were inadequate in the majority of Cochrane reviews.
Saric F; Barcot O; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Aug; 112():53-58. PubMed ID: 31009658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study.
Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Cavar M; Jelicic Kadic A; Poklepovic Pericic T; Vukicevic I; Vuka I; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Sep; 20(1):240. PubMed ID: 32993499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
Puljak L; Ramic I; Arriola Naharro C; Brezova J; Lin YC; Surdila AA; Tomajkova E; Farias Medeiros I; Nikolovska M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Barcot O; Suarez Salvado M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():114-119. PubMed ID: 32247026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.
Babić A; Barcot O; Visković T; Šarić F; Kirkovski A; Barun I; Križanac Z; Ananda RA; Fuentes Barreiro YV; Malih N; Dimcea DA; Ordulj J; Weerasekara I; Spezia M; Žuljević MF; Šuto J; Tancredi L; Pijuk A; Sammali S; Iascone V; von Groote T; Poklepović Peričić T; Puljak L
Res Synth Methods; 2024 May; 15(3):430-440. PubMed ID: 38262609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effect of the CONSORT statement on the amount of "unclear" Risk of Bias reporting in Cochrane Systematic Reviews.
Rademaker MM; Ramakers GGJ; Smit AL; Hooft L; Stegeman I
PLoS One; 2020; 15(7):e0235535. PubMed ID: 32650340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance.
Propadalo I; Tranfic M; Vuka I; Barcot O; Pericic TP; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():10-17. PubMed ID: 30312657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate.
Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Poklepovic Pericic T; Cavar M; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Sep; 113():104-113. PubMed ID: 31132470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.
Könsgen N; Barcot O; Heß S; Puljak L; Goossen K; Rombey T; Pieper D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 120():25-32. PubMed ID: 31866473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk of bias assessment of sequence generation: a study of 100 systematic reviews of trials.
Wuytack F; Regan M; Biesty L; Meskell P; Lutomski JE; O'Donnell M; Treweek S; Devane D
Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):13. PubMed ID: 30621793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Risk of Bias in Iranian Randomized Trials Included in Cochrane Reviews.
Kabir A; Sofi-Mahmudi A; Karimi Behnagh A; Eidkhani V; Baradaran HR; Kabiri P; Haghdoost A; Mesgarpour B
Arch Iran Med; 2022 Jun; 25(6):375-382. PubMed ID: 35943017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Assessing the risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a joint domain is less accurate compared to two separate domains.
Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jul; 21(1):149. PubMed ID: 34275437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols.
Farrah K; Young K; Tunis MC; Zhao L
Syst Rev; 2019 Nov; 8(1):280. PubMed ID: 31730014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.
Jordan VM; Lensen SF; Farquhar CM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 81():72-76. PubMed ID: 27622779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews.
Faggion CM; Aranda L; Pandis N; Alarcón MA; Diaz KT
J Dent; 2019 Jan; 80():63-68. PubMed ID: 30342067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Enhanced access to recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for improving authors' judgments about risk of bias: A randomized controlled trial.
Barcot O; Ivanda M; Buljan I; Pieper D; Puljak L
Res Synth Methods; 2021 Sep; 12(5):618-629. PubMed ID: 34050603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. High and unclear risk of bias assessments are predominant in diagnostic accuracy studies included in Cochrane reviews.
Di Girolamo N; Winter A; Meursinge Reynders R
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 101():73-78. PubMed ID: 29777798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Risk of bias assessments and reporting quality of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials examining acupuncture for depression: An overview and meta-epidemiology study.
Luo S; Long Y; Xiao W; Wang X; Chen R; Guo Q; Liu J; Shao R; Du L; Chen M
J Evid Based Med; 2020 Feb; 13(1):25-33. PubMed ID: 32112515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
