Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls (Q38270447)

1 September 2017

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls (English)

1 reference

1 September 2017

0 references

1 reference

2

Peter Juni

1 reference

1 September 2017

Bruno R da Costa

1

1 reference

1 September 2017

1 December 2014

1 reference

1 September 2017

European Heart Journal

1 reference

1 September 2017

35

1 reference

1 September 2017

3336-3345

1 reference

1 September 2017

47

1 reference

PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

1 September 2017

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Meta-analysis: principles and procedures

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Prospective systematic review registration: perspective from the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N)

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions.

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Commentary: Which meta-analyses are conclusive?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Random-effects meta-analysis of inconsistent effects: a time for change

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Numbers needed to treat derived from meta-analyses--sometimes informative, usually misleading

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Circumcision in men and the prevention of HIV infection: a 'meta-analysis' revisited

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Meta-analysis, Simpson's paradox, and the number needed to treat

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias)

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Meta-Analysis. Potentials and promise

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Acetylcysteine for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after intravascular angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Some examples of regression towards the mean

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

21 January 2018

The logistic EuroSCORE

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints

21 January 2018

1 reference

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1093%2FEURHEARTJ%2FEHU424

21 January 2018

Identifiers

DOI

10.1093/EURHEARTJ/EHU424

1 reference

1 September 2017

1 reference

PubMed ID

25416325