142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32433721)
1. Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals.
McGrath TA; Bowdridge JC; Prager R; Frank RA; Treanor L; Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Salameh JP; Leeflang M; Korevaar DA; Bossuyt PM; McInnes MDF
Clin Chem; 2020 Jul; 66(7):915-924. PubMed ID: 32433721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evidence of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.
McGrath TA; McInnes MDF; van Es N; Leeflang MMG; Korevaar DA; Bossuyt PMM
Clin Chem; 2017 Aug; 63(8):1353-1362. PubMed ID: 28606911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin".
Ochodo EA; de Haan MC; Reitsma JB; Hooft L; Bossuyt PM; Leeflang MM
Radiology; 2013 May; 267(2):581-8. PubMed ID: 23360738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer.
Goldkuhle M; Narayan VM; Weigl A; Dahm P; Skoetz N
BMJ Open; 2018 Mar; 8(3):e020869. PubMed ID: 29581210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.
Korevaar DA; Salameh JP; Vali Y; Cohen JF; McInnes MDF; Spijker R; Bossuyt PM
Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):343-353. PubMed ID: 31981399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Risk of bias assessment of test comparisons was uncommon in comparative accuracy systematic reviews: an overview of reviews.
Yang B; Vali Y; Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Harris IM; Beese S; Davenport C; Hyde C; Takwoingi Y; Whiting P; Langendam MW; Leeflang MMG
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():167-174. PubMed ID: 32798714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review.
Nascimento DP; Gonzalez GZ; Araujo AC; Costa LOP
Eur Spine J; 2020 Mar; 29(3):462-479. PubMed ID: 31707453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals.
Martinez-Monedero R; Danielian A; Angajala V; Dinalo JE; Kezirian EJ
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2020 Nov; 163(5):892-905. PubMed ID: 32450783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Eight in Every 10 Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews.
Nascimento DP; Gonzalez GZ; Araujo AC; Moseley AM; Maher CG; Costa LOP
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 2020 Jan; 50(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 31443622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible.
Faggion CM; Huivin R; Aranda L; Pandis N; Alarcon M
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Jun; 98():53-61. PubMed ID: 29476922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative reviews of diagnostic test accuracy in imaging research: evaluation of current practices.
Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Leeflang M; Treanor L; Kraaijpoel N; Salameh JP; Alabousi M; Asraoui N; Choo-Foo J; Takwoingi Y; Deeks JJ; McInnes MDF
Eur Radiol; 2019 Oct; 29(10):5386-5394. PubMed ID: 30899976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review.
McGrath TA; Alabousi M; Skidmore B; Korevaar DA; Bossuyt PMM; Moher D; Thombs B; McInnes MDF
Syst Rev; 2017 Oct; 6(1):194. PubMed ID: 29017574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.
Zhang J; Wang J; Han L; Zhang F; Cao J; Ma Y
Nurs Outlook; 2015; 63(4):446-455.e4. PubMed ID: 26187084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Infrequent use of clinical trials registries in published systematic reviews in urology.
Aro T; Koo K; Matlaga BR
World J Urol; 2020 May; 38(5):1335-1340. PubMed ID: 31444605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A Critical Review of Search Strategies Used in Recent Systematic Reviews Published in Selected Prosthodontic and Implant-Related Journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic?
Layton D
Int J Prosthodont; 2017; 30(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 28085971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Clinical trial registry use in anaesthesiology systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals and the Cochrane Library.
Umberham BA; Detweiler BN; Sims MT; Vassar M
Eur J Anaesthesiol; 2017 Dec; 34(12):797-807. PubMed ID: 28731924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
Collier A; Heilig L; Schilling L; Williams H; Dellavalle RP
Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
