142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32433721)
21. Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research.
Lumbreras B; Parker LA; Porta M; Pollán M; Ioannidis JP; Hernández-Aguado I
Clin Chem; 2009 Apr; 55(4):786-94. PubMed ID: 19233907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy could not be reproduced.
Stegeman I; Leeflang MMG
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Nov; 127():161-166. PubMed ID: 32679314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-2014: A methodology study.
Saltaji H; Ospina MB; Armijo-Olivo S; Agarwal S; Cummings GG; Amin M; Flores-Mir C
J Am Dent Assoc; 2016 Sep; 147(9):720-728.e1. PubMed ID: 27155754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Limits in the search date for rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Furuya-Kanamori L; Lin L; Kostoulas P; Clark J; Xu C
Res Synth Methods; 2023 Mar; 14(2):173-179. PubMed ID: 36054082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.
Jadad AR; Cook DJ; Jones A; Klassen TP; Tugwell P; Moher M; Moher D
JAMA; 1998 Jul; 280(3):278-80. PubMed ID: 9676681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.
Delaney A; Bagshaw SM; Ferland A; Laupland K; Manns B; Doig C
Crit Care Med; 2007 Feb; 35(2):589-94. PubMed ID: 17205029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Application of weighting methods for presenting risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.
Vali Y; Leeflang MMG; Bossuyt PMM
Syst Rev; 2021 Jun; 10(1):191. PubMed ID: 34174958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Tools to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews of nursing intervention in China: Global implications of the findings.
Zhang J; Wang J; Han L; Cao X; Shields L
Nurs Outlook; 2017; 65(4):380-391. PubMed ID: 28024756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR.
Wu X; Sun H; Zhou X; Wang J; Li J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Mar; 18(1):30. PubMed ID: 29548276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.
Pölkki T; Kanste O; Kääriäinen M; Elo S; Kyngäs H
J Clin Nurs; 2014 Feb; 23(3-4):315-32. PubMed ID: 23489745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.
Fleming PS; Koletsi D; Seehra J; Pandis N
J Clin Epidemiol; 2014 Jul; 67(7):754-9. PubMed ID: 24709031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study.
Tsujimoto Y; Tsujimoto H; Kataoka Y; Kimachi M; Shimizu S; Ikenoue T; Fukuma S; Yamamoto Y; Fukuhara S
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Apr; 84():54-60. PubMed ID: 28242481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline.
Salameh JP; McInnes MDF; Moher D; Thombs BD; McGrath TA; Frank R; Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; Kraaijpoel N; Levis B; Bossuyt PM
Clin Chem; 2019 Feb; 65(2):291-301. PubMed ID: 30237150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals.
Faggion CM; Bakas NP; Wasiak J
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):176. PubMed ID: 29281975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?
Alabousi M; Alabousi A; McGrath TA; Cobey KD; Budhram B; Frank RA; Nguyen F; Salameh JP; Dehmoobad Sharifabadi A; McInnes MDF
Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):517-526. PubMed ID: 30051140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Impact Factors and Prediction of Popular Topics in a Journal.
Nielsen MB; Seitz K
Ultraschall Med; 2016 Aug; 37(4):343-5. PubMed ID: 27490462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage: compliance with PRISMA guidelines.
Ndze VN; Jaca A; Wiysonge CS
Hum Vaccin Immunother; 2019; 15(12):2836-2843. PubMed ID: 31166843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals.
Chapman SJ; Drake TM; Bolton WS; Barnard J; Bhangu A
Br J Surg; 2017 Feb; 104(3):198-204. PubMed ID: 28001294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.
Mullan RJ; Flynn DN; Carlberg B; Tleyjeh IM; Kamath CC; LaBella ML; Erwin PJ; Guyatt GH; Montori VM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Feb; 62(2):138-42. PubMed ID: 19013767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
