169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31326542)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Improvement needed in the network geometry and inconsistency of Cochrane network meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey.
Gao Y; Ge L; Ma X; Shen X; Liu M; Tian J
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Sep; 113():214-227. PubMed ID: 31150834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Topics and PRISMA Checklist Compliance for Meta-analyses in Dermatology: Journal Case Study.
Poveda-Montoyo I; Belinchón-Romero I; Romero-Pérez D; Ramos-Rincón JM
Acta Dermatovenerol Croat; 2019 Dec; 27(4):275-277. PubMed ID: 31969243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Statistical analyses and quality of individual participant data network meta-analyses were suboptimal: a cross-sectional study.
Gao Y; Shi S; Li M; Luo X; Liu M; Yang K; Zhang J; Song F; Tian J
BMC Med; 2020 Jun; 18(1):120. PubMed ID: 32475340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.
Kelly SE; Moher D; Clifford TJ
Syst Rev; 2016 May; 5():79. PubMed ID: 27160255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses.
Zhang H; Han J; Zhu YB; Lau WY; Schwartz ME; Xie GQ; Dai SY; Shen YN; Wu MC; Shen F; Yang T
J Clin Epidemiol; 2016 Feb; 70():4-16. PubMed ID: 26117439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.
Ge L; Tian JH; Li YN; Pan JX; Li G; Wei D; Xing X; Pan B; Chen YL; Song FJ; Yang KH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jan; 93():45-55. PubMed ID: 29111471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review.
Willis BH; Quigley M
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2011 Dec; 11():163. PubMed ID: 22151233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Xia H; Peng S; Huang S; Jiang J; Zeng X; Zhang H; Pu X; Zou K; Lü Y; Xu H; Peng Y; Lü M; Tang X
Surg Endosc; 2023 Feb; 37(2):807-816. PubMed ID: 36050611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
