131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31476376)
1. Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status.
Runjic E; Rombey T; Pieper D; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Dec; 116():114-121. PubMed ID: 31476376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting.
Page MJ; Shamseer L; Tricco AC
Syst Rev; 2018 Feb; 7(1):32. PubMed ID: 29463298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain.
Carev M; Čivljak M; Puljak L; Došenović S
J Comp Eff Res; 2023 Mar; 12(3):e220129. PubMed ID: 36688587
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date.
Rombey T; Doni K; Hoffmann F; Pieper D; Allers K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jan; 117():60-67. PubMed ID: 31589953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.
van der Braak K; Ghannad M; Orelio C; Heus P; Damen JAA; Spijker R; Robinson K; Lund H; Hooft L
Syst Rev; 2022 Sep; 11(1):191. PubMed ID: 36064610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO.
Khaleel S; Cleveland B; Kalapara A; Sathianathen N; Balaji P; Dahm P
World J Urol; 2020 Nov; 38(11):2981-2986. PubMed ID: 31784773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study.
Tsujimoto H; Tsujimoto Y; Kataoka Y
BMC Res Notes; 2017 Dec; 10(1):703. PubMed ID: 29208054
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol.
Ruano J; Gómez-García F; Gay-Mimbrera J; Aguilar-Luque M; Fernández-Rueda JL; Fernández-Chaichio J; Alcalde-Mellado P; Carmona-Fernandez PJ; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Viguera-Guerra I; Franco-García F; Cárdenas-Aranzana M; Romero JLH; Gonzalez-Padilla M; Isla-Tejera B; Garcia-Nieto AV
Syst Rev; 2018 Mar; 7(1):43. PubMed ID: 29523200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017.
Rombey T; Allers K; Mathes T; Hoffmann F; Pieper D
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Mar; 19(1):57. PubMed ID: 30866832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.
Tawfik GM; Giang HTN; Ghozy S; Altibi AM; Kandil H; Le HH; Eid PS; Radwan I; Makram OM; Hien TTT; Sherif M; Hossain AS; Thang TLL; Puljak L; Salem H; Numair T; Moji K; Huy NT
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2020 Aug; 20(1):213. PubMed ID: 32842968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Statistical significance did not affect time to publication in non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a metaepidemiological study.
Tsujimoto Y; Tsutsumi Y; Kataoka Y; Tsujimoto H; Yamamoto Y; Papola D; Guyatt GH; Fukuhara S; Furukawa TA
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Nov; 115():25-34. PubMed ID: 31276781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Publication of reviews synthesizing child health evidence (PORSCHE): a survey of authors to identify factors associated with publication in Cochrane and non-Cochrane sources.
Hartling L; Shave K; Thomson D; Fernandes RM; Wingert A; Williams K
Syst Rev; 2016 Jun; 5(1):104. PubMed ID: 27328935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey.
Rombey T; Puljak L; Allers K; Ruano J; Pieper D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Jul; 123():9-17. PubMed ID: 32201257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Inconsistencies in study eligibility criteria are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in PROSPERO.
Hu K; Zhao L; Zhou Q; Mei F; Gao Q; Chen F; Jiang M; Zhao B; Zhang W; Kwong JSW; Ma Y; Mou C; Ma B
Res Synth Methods; 2021 May; 12(3):394-405. PubMed ID: 33522101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search.
Allers K; Hoffmann F; Mathes T; Pieper D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Mar; 95():102-110. PubMed ID: 29258907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study.
Nothacker J; Stadelmaier J; Siemens W; Meerpohl JJ; Schmucker C
BMJ Open; 2022 May; 12(5):e060255. PubMed ID: 35534064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain.
Biocic M; Fidahic M; Cikes K; Puljak L
Res Synth Methods; 2019 Dec; 10(4):597-605. PubMed ID: 31393677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study.
Siemens W; Nothacker J; Stadelmaier J; Meerpohl JJ; Schmucker C
J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Dec; 152():36-46. PubMed ID: 36179937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain.
Dosenovic S; Dujmic A; Nujic D; Vuka I; Tintor G; Kadic AJ; Puljak L
J Comp Eff Res; 2021 Jan; 10(1):67-75. PubMed ID: 33355481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained.
Koensgen N; Rombey T; Allers K; Mathes T; Hoffmann F; Pieper D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Jun; 110():34-41. PubMed ID: 30822507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]