345 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32423382)
21. Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Stem Cells for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Liu A; Yu W; Chen J; Guo T; Niu P; Feng H; Jia Y
Stem Cells Dev; 2022 Aug; 31(15-16):431-444. PubMed ID: 35316077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.
Chung VCH; Wu XY; Feng Y; Ho RST; Wong SYS; Threapleton D
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci; 2018 Dec; 27(6):619-627. PubMed ID: 28462754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A tool for assessment of risk of bias in studies of adverse effects of orthodontic treatment applied in a systematic review on external root resorption.
Johansson K; Lindh C; Paulsson L; Rohlin M
Eur J Orthod; 2021 Aug; 43(4):457-466. PubMed ID: 33215631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study.
Detweiler BN; Kollmorgen LE; Umberham BA; Hedin RJ; Vassar BM
Anaesthesia; 2016 Aug; 71(8):955-68. PubMed ID: 27396249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Use of methodological tools for assessing the quality of studies in periodontology and implant dentistry: a systematic review.
Faggion CM; Huda F; Wasiak J
J Clin Periodontol; 2014 Jun; 41(6):625-31. PubMed ID: 24666018
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. An observational study found large methodological heterogeneity in systematic reviews addressing prevalence and cumulative incidence.
Hoffmann F; Eggers D; Pieper D; Zeeb H; Allers K
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Mar; 119():92-99. PubMed ID: 31809847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017.
Natto ZS; AlGhamdi DS
Saudi Med J; 2019 May; 40(5):426-431. PubMed ID: 31056617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study.
Tam WW; Lo KK; Khalechelvam P
BMJ Open; 2017 Feb; 7(2):e013905. PubMed ID: 28174224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals.
Hedin RJ; Umberham BA; Detweiler BN; Kollmorgen L; Vassar M
Anesth Analg; 2016 Oct; 123(4):1018-25. PubMed ID: 27537925
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Conflict of interest and risk of bias in systematic reviews on methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional study.
Snellman A; Carlberg S; Olsson L
Syst Rev; 2023 Sep; 12(1):175. PubMed ID: 37752560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Heterogeneity of studies in anesthesiology systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological review and proposal for evidence mapping.
Umberham B; Hedin R; Detweiler B; Kollmorgen L; Hicks C; Vassar M
Br J Anaesth; 2017 Nov; 119(5):874-884. PubMed ID: 29029012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention.
Matterne U; Theurich MA; Pröbstl S; Pieper D; Wang J; Xu A; Apfelbacher C
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2023 Apr; 23(1):80. PubMed ID: 37016313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews.
Roqué M; Martínez-García L; Solà I; Alonso-Coello P; Bonfill X; Zamora J
F1000Res; 2020; 9():82. PubMed ID: 33082931
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. Three risk of bias tools lead to opposite conclusions in observational research synthesis.
Losilla JM; Oliveras I; Marin-Garcia JA; Vives J
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Sep; 101():61-72. PubMed ID: 29864541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
