What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions
Published 2015 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
BMJ Open
Volume 5, Issue 11, Pages e009051-e009051
Publisher
BMJ
Online
2015-11-18
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Reporting of interventions in randomised trials: an audit of journal Instructions to Authors
- (2014) Tammy Hoffmann et al. Trials
- Assessment of the quality of reporting for treatment components in Cochrane reviews of acupuncture
- (2014) Kun Hyung Kim et al. BMJ Open
- Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide
- (2014) T. C. Hoffmann et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews
- (2014) P. Saini et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Intervention Synthesis: A Missing Link between a Systematic Review and Practical Treatment(s)
- (2014) Paul P. Glasziou et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Assessing the applicability of findings in systematic reviews of complex interventions can enhance the utility of reviews for decision making
- (2013) Belinda Burford et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- The Oxford Implementation Index: a new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- (2013) Paul Montgomery et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
- (2013) T. C. Hoffmann et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Systematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews
- (2012) Pasqualina Santaguida et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials
- (2012) Sara Schroter et al. BMJ Open
- Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions
- (2012) John Wallace et al. BMJ Open
- Stroke rehabilitation
- (2011) Peter Langhorne et al. LANCET
- Stroke: Working Toward a Prioritized World Agenda
- (2010) Vladimir Hachinski et al. STROKE
- Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?
- (2010) Hilda Bastian et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
- (2009) David Moher et al. PLOS MEDICINE
Discover Peeref hubs
Discuss science. Find collaborators. Network.
Join a conversationBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started