Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 163

1.
3.

Methodological quality of meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools.

Rice DB, Shrier I, Kloda LA, Benedetti A, Thombs BD.

J Psychosom Res. 2016 May;84:84-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.03.013. Epub 2016 Mar 24.

PMID:
27095164
4.

Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 1;(10):MR000035. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2.

PMID:
25271098
5.

Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses.

Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD.

J Psychosom Res. 2016 Aug;87:7-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.06.002. Epub 2016 Jun 5. Review.

6.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for detecting major depression in pregnant and postnatal women: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses.

Thombs BD, Benedetti A, Kloda LA, Levis B, Riehm KE, Azar M, Cuijpers P, Gilbody S, Ioannidis JP, McMillan D, Patten SB, Shrier I, Steele RJ, Ziegelstein RC, Tonelli M, Mitchell N, Comeau L, Schinazi J, Vigod S.

BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 20;5(10):e009742. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009742.

7.

Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Rice DB, Kloda LA, Shrier I, Thombs BD.

BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 18;6(11):e012867. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012867.

8.

Analysis of decisions made in meta-analyses of depression screening and the risk of confirmation bias: a case study.

Goodyear-Smith FA, van Driel ML, Arroll B, Del Mar C.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Jun 12;12:76. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-76.

9.

Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome.

Ford AC, Guyatt GH, Talley NJ, Moayyedi P.

Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):280-8. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.658. Epub 2009 Nov 17. Review.

PMID:
19920807
10.

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

Briel M, Müller KF, Meerpohl JJ, von Elm E, Lang B, Motschall E, Gloy V, Lamontagne F, Schwarzer G, Bassler D; OPEN Consortium.

Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 27;2:23. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-23.

11.

The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.

Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, Niu Y, Du L.

J Evid Based Med. 2015 Feb;8(1):2-10. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141. Review.

12.

There are no randomized controlled trials that support the United States Preventive Services Task Force Guideline on screening for depression in primary care: a systematic review.

Thombs BD, Ziegelstein RC, Roseman M, Kloda LA, Ioannidis JP.

BMC Med. 2014 Jan 28;12:13. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-12-13. Review.

13.

Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J.

Health Technol Assess. 2004 Jun;8(25):iii, 1-234. Review.

14.

The diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for detecting major depression: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses.

Thombs BD, Benedetti A, Kloda LA, Levis B, Nicolau I, Cuijpers P, Gilbody S, Ioannidis JP, McMillan D, Patten SB, Shrier I, Steele RJ, Ziegelstein RC.

Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 27;3:124. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-124. Review.

15.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) for detecting major depression: protocol for a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analyses.

Thombs BD, Benedetti A, Kloda LA, Levis B, Azar M, Riehm KE, Saadat N, Cuijpers P, Gilbody S, Ioannidis JP, McMillan D, Patten SB, Shrier I, Steele RJ, Ziegelstein RC, Loiselle CG, Henry M, Ismail Z, Mitchell N, Tonelli M.

BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 13;6(4):e011913. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011913. Review.

16.

Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement.

Rice DB, Kloda LA, Shrier I, Thombs BD.

J Psychosom Res. 2016 Aug;87:57-69. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.06.007. Epub 2016 Jun 15.

PMID:
27411753
17.

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent.

Seehra J, Pandis N, Koletsi D, Fleming PS.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:179-84.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023. Epub 2015 Jul 4.

PMID:
26151664
18.

Depression screening tools in persons with epilepsy: A systematic review of validated tools.

Gill SJ, Lukmanji S, Fiest KM, Patten SB, Wiebe S, Jetté N.

Epilepsia. 2017 May;58(5):695-705. doi: 10.1111/epi.13651. Epub 2017 Jan 8. Review.

PMID:
28064446
19.
20.

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

Supplemental Content

Support Center