Inconsistencies in study eligibility criteria are common between non‐Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in PROSPERO
出版年份 2021 全文链接
标题
Inconsistencies in study eligibility criteria are common between
non‐Cochrane
systematic reviews and their protocols registered in
PROSPERO
作者
关键词
-
出版物
Research Synthesis Methods
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -
出版商
Wiley
发表日期
2021-02-01
DOI
10.1002/jrsm.1476
参考文献
相关参考文献
注意：仅列出部分参考文献，下载原文获取全部文献信息。- A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017
- (2019) Tanja Rombey et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained
- (2019) Nadja Koensgen et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines
- (2019) Matthew J. Page et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Differences between protocols for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews
- (2018) Dawid Pieper et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Does body mass index truly affect mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients after coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft? A systematic review and network meta-analysis
- (2018) W.-Q. Ma et al. Obesity Reviews
- AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both
- (2017) Beverley J Shea et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both
- (2017) Beverley J Shea et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study
- (2016) Andrea C. Tricco 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
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
- (2015) L. Shamseer et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
- (2015) L. Shamseer et al. BMJ-British Medical Journal
- Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
- (2014) Philip F Stahel et al. BMC Medicine
- How to Read a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Apply the Results to Patient Care
- (2014) Mohammad Hassan Murad et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Synthesizing Evidence
- (2013) M. Hassan Murad et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Measuring the Incidence, Causes, and Repercussions of Protocol Amendments
- (2012) Kenneth A. Getz et al. DRUG INFORMATION JOURNAL
- Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research
- (2010) David Chavalarias et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- An international registry of systematic-review protocols
- (2010) Alison Booth et al. LANCET
- Registering systematic reviews
- (2009) S. Straus et al. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
Find Funding. Review Successful Grants.
Explore over 25,000 new funding opportunities and over 6,000,000 successful grants.
ExploreAsk a Question. Answer a Question.
Quickly pose questions to the entire community. Debate answers and get clarity on the most important issues facing researchers.
Get Started