Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study.
about
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventionsSeeking effective interventions to treat complex wounds: an overview of systematic reviews.Social media use among patients and caregivers: a scoping reviewA systematic review of the use and effectiveness of social media in child health.Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? A cross-sectional study.How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews?Factors predicting completion and time to publication of Cochrane reviews.Evolution of heterogeneity (I2) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals in large meta-analysesAn evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).Incomplete reporting of baseline characteristics in clinical trials: an analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews involving patients with chronic low back pain.Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: a meta-epidemiological study.Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews.Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis.A Systematic Review of Social Media Use to Discuss and View Deliberate Self-Harm Acts.Intranasal ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in children: A systematic review.Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.Interpreting meta-analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV-infected individuals'Spin' in reports of clinical research.'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic reviewAssociation between statistical significance and time to publication among systematic reviews: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation.Probiotics and gastrointestinal conditions: An overview of evidence from the Cochrane Collaboration.Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses.Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study.Addressing problems in profit-driven research: how can feminist conceptions of objectivity help?
P2860
Q24198908-DB6079D9-965F-4ACE-AEBD-74BDBA7AFE32Q27690222-135960E3-5423-4EE1-9C4A-7F180CDA8065Q28704109-0FCCFF58-FEDA-4D42-AC70-F49399A4DB89Q30580088-F35A0E9D-C112-4929-89C2-74E204A55C02Q33857706-F949E1F0-1EF7-4A2E-9514-2382F27E2679Q33857712-E53770D4-3B64-44E6-9D6B-8E05E2D1E0A4Q33937155-E76F3332-864F-4E30-993B-948D8D0C51BDQ34357780-C7CD7047-C24D-4A10-BEC7-7FE98D3E318FQ34558486-0CC9A20D-083A-4A85-BF2A-EE4B79FD299FQ34625888-8F374600-BEFD-4477-BBDB-911EA301AF2BQ35088375-30E738BF-46A6-411C-868F-DF2BEC46AA49Q35659929-39A81DB0-4A64-4A38-B7EC-243AE8015FDEQ35869658-A33451C3-16A6-4441-842D-D69411AD00B4Q36020960-87560A4E-789F-4EC7-A889-6D1DE2971C96Q36314766-BB70625D-2E0A-4A35-B5B3-7E7D2C51E6EBQ36320887-CF1C762F-8EE3-437C-BFC5-14EC1971C913Q39834471-FC59510B-52E4-44F8-A498-EFB9249541FDQ40543080-04A4195E-F906-4464-A183-116724CA148AQ41368858-F3F9212A-E3DE-4408-B5B2-4AA6CB0D904DQ43406769-7B141105-BCD7-4028-A8EE-23BD0743275DQ50224112-3A38DB86-5699-427E-A576-5708E615F2AFQ53174580-8842CCE8-F768-4D70-B45C-307A40288AE8Q55373770-9B2F51F3-0D40-4E60-8ED4-2862DFB42104Q58040090-9131AC1F-B872-4566-961E-F6B4B2C44656
P2860
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study.
description
2009 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2009 թուականի Յունուարին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2009 թվականի հունվարին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2009年の論文
@ja
2009年論文
@yue
2009年論文
@zh-hant
2009年論文
@zh-hk
2009年論文
@zh-mo
2009年論文
@zh-tw
2009年论文
@wuu
name
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@ast
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@en
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@nl
type
label
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@ast
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@en
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@nl
prefLabel
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@ast
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@en
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@nl
P2093
P1476
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane revi ...... ements: cross-sectional study.
@en
P2093
Andrea C Tricco
Jamie Brehaut
P304
380-386.e1
P356
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2008.08.008
P577
2009-01-06T00:00:00Z