166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37931822)
1. Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study.
Bojcic R; Todoric M; Puljak L
J Clin Epidemiol; 2024 Jan; 165():111210. PubMed ID: 37931822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study.
Karakasis P; Bougioukas KI; Pamporis K; Fragakis N; Haidich AB
Res Synth Methods; 2024 Mar; 15(2):213-226. PubMed ID: 37956538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.
Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
Syst Rev; 2017 Jul; 6(1):131. PubMed ID: 28720117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with meta-analyses focusing on traumatic dental injuries: A cross-sectional study.
Nagendrababu V; Faggion CM; Gopinath VK; Narasimhan S; Duncan HF; Levin L; Abbott PV; Dummer PMH
Dent Traumatol; 2023 Dec; 39(6):637-646. PubMed ID: 37594908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study.
Puljak L; Bala MM; Mathes T; Poklepovic Pericic T; Wegewitz U; Faggion CM; Matthias K; Storman D; Zajac J; Rombey T; Bruschettini M; Pieper D
J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Nov; 163():11-20. PubMed ID: 37659582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional study.
Tsoi AKN; Ho LTF; Wu IXY; Wong CHL; Ho RST; Lim JYY; Mao C; Lee EKP; Chung VCH
Bone; 2020 Oct; 139():115541. PubMed ID: 32730932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
Pollock M; Fernandes RM; Hartling L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):48. PubMed ID: 28335734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
Dosenovic S; Jelicic Kadic A; Vucic K; Markovina N; Pieper D; Puljak L
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 May; 18(1):37. PubMed ID: 29739339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study.
De Santis KK; Matthias K
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2023 Mar; 20(6):. PubMed ID: 36981598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on atopic dermatitis treatments: a cross-sectional study.
Ho L; Cheung YMK; Choi CCC; Wu IX; Mao C; Chung VCH
J Dermatolog Treat; 2024 Dec; 35(1):2343072. PubMed ID: 38626923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.
Pussegoda K; Turner L; Garritty C; Mayhew A; Skidmore B; Stevens A; Boutron I; Sarkis-Onofre R; Bjerre LM; Hróbjartsson A; Altman DG; Moher D
Syst Rev; 2017 Jun; 6(1):117. PubMed ID: 28629396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.
Pieper D; Hellbrecht I; Zhao L; Baur C; Pick G; Schneider S; Harder T; Young K; Tricco AC; Westhaver E; Tunis M
Syst Rev; 2022 Aug; 11(1):174. PubMed ID: 35996186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain.
Riado Minguez D; Kowalski M; Vallve Odena M; Longin Pontzen D; Jelicic Kadic A; Jeric M; Dosenovic S; Jakus D; Vrdoljak M; Poklepovic Pericic T; Sapunar D; Puljak L
Anesth Analg; 2017 Oct; 125(4):1348-1354. PubMed ID: 28678074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting.
Pieper D; Koensgen N; Breuing J; Ge L; Wegewitz U
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2018 Jun; 18(1):56. PubMed ID: 29914386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study.
Lu C; Lu T; Ge L; Yang N; Yan P; Yang K
Ann Transl Med; 2020 May; 8(10):652. PubMed ID: 32566589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals.
Dettori JR; Skelly AC; Brodt ED
Global Spine J; 2020 Aug; 10(5):667-673. PubMed ID: 32677574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on sepsis treatments: A cross-sectional study.
Ho L; Chen X; Kwok YL; Wu IXY; Mao C; Chung VCH
Am J Emerg Med; 2024 Mar; 77():21-28. PubMed ID: 38096636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Completeness of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery.
Javidan A; Alaichi J; Nassar Y; Li A; Balta KY; Naji F
J Vasc Surg; 2023 Dec; 78(6):1550-1558.e2. PubMed ID: 37068527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
