124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37096439)
1. Involvement of information specialists and statisticians in systematic reviews.
Waffenschmidt S; Bender R
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2023 Apr; 39(1):e22. PubMed ID: 37096439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Soll RF; Ovelman C; McGuire W
Early Hum Dev; 2020 Nov; 150():105191. PubMed ID: 33036834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?
Tsertsvadze A; Chen YF; Moher D; Sutcliffe P; McCarthy N
Syst Rev; 2015 Nov; 4():160. PubMed ID: 26563648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Newton AS; Scott SD; Hartling L
Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):18. PubMed ID: 30635048
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Information specialists improve the quality of systematic reviews].
Wildgaard L; Vendt J; Wildgaard K
Ugeskr Laeger; 2018 Jul; 180(28):. PubMed ID: 29984706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.
Gómez-García F; Ruano J; Aguilar-Luque M; Alcalde-Mellado P; Gay-Mimbrera J; Hernández-Romero JL; Sanz-Cabanillas JL; Maestre-López B; González-Padilla M; Carmona-Fernández PJ; García-Nieto AV; Isla-Tejera B
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Dec; 17(1):180. PubMed ID: 29284417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: a cross-sectional survey.
Pawliuk C; Cheng S; Zheng A; Siden HH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Feb; 166():111237. PubMed ID: 38072177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments. A Cross-Sectional Study.
Wu IXY; Deng Y; Wang H; Chen Y; Wong CHL; Chung VCH
Ann Am Thorac Soc; 2020 Aug; 17(8):949-957. PubMed ID: 32383967
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search.
Klerings I; Robalino S; Booth A; Escobar-Liquitay CM; Sommer I; Gartlehner G; Devane D; Waffenschmidt S;
BMJ Evid Based Med; 2023 Nov; 28(6):412-417. PubMed ID: 37076268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.
Ho L; Ke FYT; Wong CHL; Wu IXY; Cheung AKL; Mao C; Chung VCH
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Oct; 21(1):237. PubMed ID: 34717563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey.
Cheung AKL; Wong CHL; Ho L; Wu IXY; Ke FYT; Chung VCH
BMC Complement Med Ther; 2022 Feb; 22(1):48. PubMed ID: 35197038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessing the performance of methodological search filters to improve the efficiency of evidence information retrieval: five literature reviews and a qualitative study.
Lefebvre C; Glanville J; Beale S; Boachie C; Duffy S; Fraser C; Harbour J; McCool R; Smith L
Health Technol Assess; 2017 Nov; 21(69):1-148. PubMed ID: 29188764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Citation bias in otolaryngology systematic reviews.
Vassar M; Johnson AL; Sharp A; Wayant C
J Med Libr Assoc; 2021 Jan; 109(1):62-67. PubMed ID: 33424465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.
Bramer WM; Giustini D; Kramer BM; Anderson P
Syst Rev; 2013 Dec; 2():115. PubMed ID: 24360284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. An analysis of data sources and study registries used in systematic reviews.
Nick JM; Sarpy NL
Worldviews Evid Based Nurs; 2022 Dec; 19(6):450-457. PubMed ID: 36380457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Newton AS; Scott SD; Hartling L
Syst Rev; 2019 Jan; 8(1):29. PubMed ID: 30670086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
