These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

303 related items for PubMed ID: 16828667

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008.
    MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P.
    J Urol; 2010 Aug; 184(2):648-53. PubMed ID: 20639030
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
    Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH.
    Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Nov; 38(5):518-26. PubMed ID: 11679863
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
    Collier A, Heilig L, Schilling L, Williams H, Dellavalle RP.
    Br J Dermatol; 2006 Dec; 155(6):1230-5. PubMed ID: 17107394
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews.
    Lawson ML, Pham B, Klassen TP, Moher D.
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Aug; 58(8):777-84. PubMed ID: 16018912
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
    Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, Hirsch JA.
    Pain Physician; 2009 Aug; 12(5):819-50. PubMed ID: 19787009
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals.
    Smith AF.
    Can J Anaesth; 1997 Apr; 44(4):405-9. PubMed ID: 9104524
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews.
    Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, Cogo E, Moher D.
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 Aug; 61(8):748-54. PubMed ID: 18586178
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. [Is the methodology of our original articles essentially inferior to similar papers published in English-speaking journals?].
    Reyes H, Kauffmann R, Andresen M.
    Rev Med Chil; 1998 Apr; 126(4):361-2. PubMed ID: 9699364
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Systematic reviews and original articles differ in relevance, novelty, and use in an evidence-based service for physicians: PLUS project.
    McKinlay RJ, Cotoi C, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB.
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2008 May; 61(5):449-54. PubMed ID: 18394537
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Evaluating the surgery literature: can standardizing peer-review today predict manuscript impact tomorrow?
    Sosa JA, Mehta P, Thomas DC, Berland G, Gross C, McNamara RL, Rosenthal R, Udelsman R, Bravata DM, Roman SA.
    Ann Surg; 2009 Jul; 250(1):152-8. PubMed ID: 19561471
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment.
    Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, Facey K, Hailey D, Norderhaug I, Maddern G.
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2008 Jul; 24(2):133-9. PubMed ID: 18400114
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. [How to produce systematic reviews of excellent quality and to define evidence-based nephrology].
    Darnand K, Fouque D.
    Nephrologie; 2000 Jul; 21(2):71-4. PubMed ID: 10798207
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy.
    Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C.
    J Clin Epidemiol; 2009 Oct; 62(10):1021-30. PubMed ID: 19282144
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. A method for defining a journal subset for a clinical discipline using the bibliographies of systematic reviews.
    Wilczynski NL, Garg AX, Haynes B, Nephrology Hedges Team.
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2007 Oct; 129(Pt 1):721-4. PubMed ID: 17911811
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 16.