Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence
Published 2018 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence
Authors
Keywords
Systematic reviews, Quality of life, Adverse events, Physiological parameters, Cost-effectiveness analysis, Interventional radiology, Surgical radiology, Randomized controlled trials
Journal
PLoS One
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages e0195460
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Online
2018-04-06
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0195460
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- RE: Which estimates comprise optimal reporting in systematic reviews?
- (2017) P. Alonso-Coello et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS
- (2017) Ian J. Saldanha et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Patient-important outcomes in randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients: a systematic review
- (2017) Stéphane Gaudry et al. Annals of Intensive Care
- Association between trial registration and treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study
- (2016) Agnès Dechartres et al. BMC Medicine
- Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects
- (2016) Pablo Alonso-Coello et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
- (2016) Matthew J. Page et al. PLOS MEDICINE
- Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and User Survey
- (2016) Sarah L. Gorst et al. PLoS One
- Completeness of main outcomes across randomized trials in entire discipline: survey of chronic lung disease outcomes in preterm infants
- (2015) J. P. A. Ioannidis et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Completeness of main outcomes across randomized trials in entire discipline: survey of chronic lung disease outcomes in preterm infants
- (2015) J. P. A. Ioannidis et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- The PCORI Perspective on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
- (2014) Lori Frank et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research
- (2014) Paul Glasziou et al. LANCET
- Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste
- (2014) Malcolm R Macleod et al. LANCET
- Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
- (2014) John P A Ioannidis et al. LANCET
- Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups
- (2013) Jamie J Kirkham et al. Trials
- Let the patient revolution begin
- (2013) T. Richards et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Methodological Standards and Patient-Centeredness in Comparative Effectiveness Research
- (2012) JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) National Priorities for Research and Initial Research Agenda
- (2012) Anne C. Beal JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider
- (2012) Paula R Williamson et al. Trials
- Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information
- (2010) Sarah E. Rosenbaum et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence
- (2009) Iain Chalmers et al. LANCET
- Patient-Important Outcomes in Registered Diabetes Trials
- (2008) Gunjan Y. Gandhi JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?
- (2008) Gordon H Guyatt et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
- (2008) Gordon H Guyatt et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
Publish scientific posters with Peeref
Peeref publishes scientific posters from all research disciplines. Our Diamond Open Access policy means free access to content and no publication fees for authors.
Learn MoreBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started