Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 203

1.

Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned.

Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Dec;59(12):1249-56. Review.

PMID:
17098567
3.

The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study.

Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou M, Liu P, Ye L, Li Y, Tian W.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Aug;61(8):770-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008.

PMID:
18411041
4.

Deconstructing evidence in orthodontics: making sense of systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and meta-analyses.

Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ, Kandasamy S, Ackerman MB.

World J Orthod. 2008 Summer;9(2):167-76.

PMID:
18575311
5.

Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ.

Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Aug;(413):43-54.

PMID:
12897595
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.

Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis.

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA.

J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Mar;45(3):255-65.

PMID:
1569422
8.

Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis.

Tierney JF, Stewart LA.

Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Feb;34(1):79-87.

9.

Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders.

Bereza BG, Machado M, Einarson TR.

Ann Pharmacother. 2008 Oct;42(10):1402-9. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L204.

PMID:
18728102
10.

Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Yuan Y, Hunt RH.

Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 May;104(5):1086-92. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118. Review.

PMID:
19417748
11.

Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles.

Shrier I, Boivin JF, Steele RJ, Platt RW, Furlan A, Kakuma R, Brophy J, Rossignol M.

Am J Epidemiol. 2007 Nov 15;166(10):1203-9.

12.

Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions.

Jørgensen AW, Maric KL, Tendal B, Faurschou A, Gøtzsche PC.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Sep 9;8:60. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-60.

13.

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.

PMID:
16267878
14.
15.

A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses.

Ipser JC, Stein DJ.

Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2009 Aug;11(4):302-9. Review.

PMID:
19635239
16.

The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews.

Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad A.

Arch Intern Med. 1996 Mar 25;156(6):661-6.

PMID:
8629879
17.

The impact of trial baseline imbalances should be considered in systematic reviews: a methodological case study.

Trowman R, Dumville JC, Torgerson DJ, Cranny G.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;60(12):1229-33. Review.

PMID:
17998076
18.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis for the surgeon scientist.

Mahid SS, Hornung CA, Minor KS, Turina M, Galandiuk S.

Br J Surg. 2006 Nov;93(11):1315-24. Review.

PMID:
17058324
19.

[Assessment of clinical trial quality and its impact on meta-analyses].

Silva Filho CR, Saconato H, Conterno LO, Marques I, Atallah AN.

Rev Saude Publica. 2005 Dec;39(6):865-73. Portuguese.

20.

Meta-analysis: an update.

Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B.

Mt Sinai J Med. 1996 May-Sep;63(3-4):216-24. Review.

PMID:
8692168
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Support Center