Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature
Published 2017 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
PeerJ
Volume 5, Issue -, Pages e3129
Publisher
PeerJ
Online
2017-04-19
DOI
10.7717/peerj.3129
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review
- (2017) Pengfei Liu et al. JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
- Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses
- (2016) Han Zhang et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Quality of Conduct and Reporting of Meta-analyses of Surgical Interventions
- (2015) Sam Adie et al. ANNALS OF SURGERY
- Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor
- (2015) Clovis Mariano Faggion BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Preservation of the Neurovascular Bundles Is Associated with Improved Time to Continence After Radical Prostatectomy But Not Long-term Continence Rates: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- (2015) Fairleigh Reeves et al. EUROPEAN UROLOGY
- Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties
- (2015) Dawid Pieper et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- What is publication bias in a meta-analysis?
- (2015) Philip Sedgwick BMJ-British Medical Journal
- What is publication bias in a meta-analysis?
- (2015) Philip Sedgwick BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Association Between Analytic Strategy and Estimates of Treatment Outcomes in Meta-analyses
- (2014) Agnes Dechartres et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Meta-analysis as Evidence
- (2014) Jesse A. Berlin et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review
- (2014) A. Bafeta et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
- (2013) Alessandro Liberati ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
- Soy and soy isoflavones in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- (2013) M. Diana van Die et al. BJU INTERNATIONAL
- Synthesizing Evidence
- (2013) M. Hassan Murad et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature
- (2013) Joel J. Gagnier et al. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
- Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement?
- (2013) Adam S. Tunis et al. RADIOLOGY
- Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review
- (2013) A. Bafeta et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Positive Surgical Margin and Perioperative Complication Rates of Primary Surgical Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Prostatectomy
- (2012) Ashutosh Tewari et al. EUROPEAN UROLOGY
- AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
- (2009) Beverley J. Shea et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
- (2009) David Moher et al. PLOS MEDICINE
Add your recorded webinar
Do you already have a recorded webinar? Grow your audience and get more views by easily listing your recording on Peeref.
Upload NowBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started