188 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33555110)
1. Agreement in Risk of Bias Assessment Between RobotReviewer and Human Reviewers: An Evaluation Study on Randomised Controlled Trials in Nursing-Related Cochrane Reviews.
Hirt J; Meichlinger J; Schumacher P; Mueller G
J Nurs Scholarsh; 2021 Mar; 53(2):246-254. PubMed ID: 33555110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparing machine and human reviewers to evaluate the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials.
Armijo-Olivo S; Craig R; Campbell S
Res Synth Methods; 2020 May; 11(3):484-493. PubMed ID: 32065732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a prospective cross-sectional evaluation of the RobotReviewer machine learning tool.
Gates A; Vandermeer B; Hartling L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2018 Apr; 96():54-62. PubMed ID: 29289761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automating risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews: a real-time mixed methods comparison of human researchers to a machine learning system.
Jardim PSJ; Rose CJ; Ames HM; Echavez JFM; Van de Velde S; Muller AE
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2022 Jun; 22(1):167. PubMed ID: 35676632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.
Yao Y; Shen J; Luo J; Li N; Liao X; Zhang Y
Trials; 2024 Jun; 25(1):405. PubMed ID: 38907276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Inter-review agreement of risk-of-bias judgments varied in Cochrane reviews.
Könsgen N; Barcot O; Heß S; Puljak L; Goossen K; Rombey T; Pieper D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2020 Apr; 120():25-32. PubMed ID: 31866473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Accuracy and Efficiency of Machine Learning-Assisted Risk-of-Bias Assessments in "Real-World" Systematic Reviews : A Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.
Arno A; Thomas J; Wallace B; Marshall IJ; McKenzie JE; Elliott JH
Ann Intern Med; 2022 Jul; 175(7):1001-1009. PubMed ID: 35635850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies.
Savović J; Jones H; Altman D; Harris R; Jűni P; Pildal J; Als-Nielsen B; Balk E; Gluud C; Gluud L; Ioannidis J; Schulz K; Beynon R; Welton N; Wood L; Moher D; Deeks J; Sterne J
Health Technol Assess; 2012 Sep; 16(35):1-82. PubMed ID: 22989478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.
Bertizzolo L; Bossuyt P; Atal I; Ravaud P; Dechartres A
BMJ Open; 2019 Apr; 9(4):e028382. PubMed ID: 30940766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Are Neonatal Trials Better Conducted and Reported over the Last 6 Decades? An Analysis on Their Risk-of-Bias Status in Cochrane Reviews.
Lai NM; Ong JMJ; Chen KH; Chaiyakunapruk N; Ovelman C; Soll R
Neonatology; 2019; 116(2):123-131. PubMed ID: 31108494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials referenced in the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care: a cross-sectional review.
Cho Y; Kim C; Kang B
BMJ Open; 2019 May; 9(5):e023725. PubMed ID: 31061016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Machine learning to help researchers evaluate biases in clinical trials: a prospective, randomized user study.
Soboczenski F; Trikalinos TA; Kuiper J; Bias RG; Wallace BC; Marshall IJ
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2019 May; 19(1):96. PubMed ID: 31068178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional Chinese medicine RCTs: a review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews.
He J; Du L; Liu G; Fu J; He X; Yu J; Shang L
Trials; 2011 May; 12():122. PubMed ID: 21569452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.
Armijo-Olivo S; Saltaji H; da Costa BR; Fuentes J; Ha C; Cummings GG
BMJ Open; 2015 Sep; 5(9):e008562. PubMed ID: 26338841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The methodological quality of 176,620 randomized controlled trials published between 1966 and 2018 reveals a positive trend but also an urgent need for improvement.
Vinkers CH; Lamberink HJ; Tijdink JK; Heus P; Bouter L; Glasziou P; Moher D; Damen JA; Hooft L; Otte WM
PLoS Biol; 2021 Apr; 19(4):e3001162. PubMed ID: 33872298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs.
Hartling L; Hamm MP; Milne A; Vandermeer B; Santaguida PL; Ansari M; Tsertsvadze A; Hempel S; Shekelle P; Dryden DM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2013 Sep; 66(9):973-81. PubMed ID: 22981249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study.
Dechartres A; Trinquart L; Atal I; Moher D; Dickersin K; Boutron I; Perrodeau E; Altman DG; Ravaud P
BMJ; 2017 Jun; 357():j2490. PubMed ID: 28596181
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool in physical therapy trials.
Armijo-Olivo S; Ospina M; da Costa BR; Egger M; Saltaji H; Fuentes J; Ha C; Cummings GG
PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e96920. PubMed ID: 24824199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Agreement of Risk-of -Bias varied in systematic reviews on acupuncture and was associated with methodological quality.
Long Y; Luo S; Chen R; Xiao W; Wang X; Hu T; Guo Q; Yang L; Cheng Y; Lin Y; Huang J; Du L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2021 Jan; 129():12-20. PubMed ID: 32987161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
