132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37203753)
21. 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]
22. Enhanced access to recommendations from the Cochrane Handbook for improving authors' judgments about risk of bias: A randomized controlled trial.
Barcot O; Ivanda M; Buljan I; Pieper D; Puljak L
Res Synth Methods; 2021 Sep; 12(5):618-629. PubMed ID: 34050603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Practicalities of using a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomised and non-randomised study designs applied in a health technology assessment setting.
Robertson C; Ramsay C; Gurung T; Mowatt G; Pickard R; Sharma P;
Res Synth Methods; 2014 Sep; 5(3):200-11. PubMed ID: 26052846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. There were large discrepancies in risk of bias tool judgments when a randomized controlled trial appeared in more than one systematic review.
Jordan VM; Lensen SF; Farquhar CM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2017 Jan; 81():72-76. PubMed ID: 27622779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Assessing the risk of performance and detection bias in Cochrane reviews as a joint domain is less accurate compared to two separate domains.
Barcot O; Boric M; Dosenovic S; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Jul; 21(1):149. PubMed ID: 34275437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. The reporting quality and risk of bias of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for migraine: Methodological study based on STRICTA and RoB 2.0.
Lu T; Lu C; Li H; Xing X; Deng X; Li X; Wang Y; Niu J; Liu Y; Yang K
Complement Ther Med; 2020 Aug; 52():102433. PubMed ID: 32951707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols.
Farrah K; Young K; Tunis MC; Zhao L
Syst Rev; 2019 Nov; 8(1):280. PubMed ID: 31730014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Application of the Risk of Bias 2 Tool].
Lee LL
Hu Li Za Zhi; 2021 Apr; 68(2):85-91. PubMed ID: 33792022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Overall bias and sample sizes were unchanged in ICU trials over time: a meta-epidemiological study.
Anthon CT; Granholm A; Perner A; Laake JH; Møller MH
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Sep; 113():189-199. PubMed ID: 31150836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
Bilandzic A; Fitzpatrick T; Rosella L; Henry D
PLoS Med; 2016 Apr; 13(4):e1001987. PubMed ID: 27046153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A systematic review of orthopaedic manual therapy randomized clinical trials quality.
Riley SP; Swanson B; Brismée JM; Sawyer SF
J Man Manip Ther; 2016 Dec; 24(5):241-252. PubMed ID: 27956817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool 2 (RoB 2) versus the original RoB: A perspective on the pros and cons.
Nejadghaderi SA; Balibegloo M; Rezaei N
Health Sci Rep; 2024 Jun; 7(6):e2165. PubMed ID: 38835932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools.
Faggion CM; Monje A; Wasiak J
J Clin Periodontol; 2018 Jun; 45(6):754-766. PubMed ID: 29575189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. In Cochrane reviews, risk of bias assessments for allocation concealment were frequently not in line with Cochrane's Handbook guidance.
Propadalo I; Tranfic M; Vuka I; Barcot O; Pericic TP; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Feb; 106():10-17. PubMed ID: 30312657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in otorhinolaryngology: hardly any improvement since 1950.
Peters JPM; Stegeman I; Grolman W; Hooft L
BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord; 2017; 17():3. PubMed ID: 28428729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials of Moxibustion Using STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Moxibustion (STRICTOM) and Risk of Bias (ROB).
Kim SY; Lee EJ; Jeon JH; Kim JH; Jung IC; Kim YI
J Acupunct Meridian Stud; 2017 Aug; 10(4):261-275. PubMed ID: 28889843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
