Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 148

1.

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998.

Olsen O, Middleton P, Ezzo J, Gøtzsche PC, Hadhazy V, Herxheimer A, Kleijnen J, McIntosh H.

BMJ. 2001 Oct 13;323(7317):829-32.

2.

[The Cochrane Collaboration and systematic literature reviews about the efficiency of a treatment].

Aertgeerts B, Cools F.

Verh K Acad Geneeskd Belg. 2007;69(5-6):335-50. Review. Dutch.

PMID:
18351212
3.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018. Epub 2009 Mar 17. Review.

PMID:
19282144
4.

Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.

Shea B, Bouter LM, Grimshaw JM, Francis D, Ortiz Z, Wells GA, Tugwell PS, Boers M.

J Rheumatol. 2006 Jan;33(1):9-15. Epub 2005 Nov 1.

PMID:
16267878
5.

Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review.

Parker D, Mills S, Abbey J.

Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2008 Jun;6(2):137-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2008.00090.x.

PMID:
21631819
6.

The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.

Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Laupland K, Manns B, Doig C.

Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):589-94.

PMID:
17205029
7.

Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review.

Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jørgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LC.

Cancer Treat Rev. 2009 Dec;35(8):645-52. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010. Review.

PMID:
19836897
8.

How to write a Cochrane systematic review.

Henderson LK, Craig JC, Willis NS, Tovey D, Webster AC.

Nephrology (Carlton). 2010 Sep;15(6):617-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01380.x.

PMID:
20883282
9.

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.

Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC.

BMJ. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782. Epub 2006 Oct 6. Review.

10.

Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results.

Hopewell S, Wolfenden L, Clarke M.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Jun;61(6):597-602. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.005. Epub 2008 Apr 14.

PMID:
18411039
11.
12.

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

French SD, McDonald S, McKenzie JE, Green SE.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Oct 14;5:33.

13.

Reporting and methodologic quality of Cochrane Neonatal review group systematic reviews.

Al Faleh K, Al-Omran M.

BMC Pediatr. 2009 Jun 17;9:38. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-9-38.

14.

Evidence based evaluation of immuno-coagulatory interventions in critical care.

Afshari A.

Dan Med Bull. 2011 Sep;58(9):B4316. Review.

PMID:
21893014
16.

An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorpororation of results from clinical trial quality assessment.

de Craen AJ, van Vliet HA, Helmerhorst FM.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Mar;58(3):311-3.

PMID:
15718121
18.

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.

Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, Hing C, Kwok CS, Pang C, Harvey I.

Health Technol Assess. 2010 Feb;14(8):iii, ix-xi, 1-193. doi: 10.3310/hta14080. Review.

19.

Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies.

Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Apr 21;8:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-22.

20.

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.

PMID:
17107394

Supplemental Content

Support Center