(Q24243446)

English

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk-of-bias in studies included in a systematic review

scientific article

In more languages

edit

Statements

0 references

1 reference

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk-of-bias in studies included in a systematic review (English)

0 references

1 reference

1 reference

1

0 references

Tanya Horsley

object named as

Tanya Horsley

series ordinal

2

0 references

Andrea C. Tricco

series ordinal

4

object named as

Andrea Tricco

0 references

author name string

Kate Morgan

series ordinal

3

0 references

Alexander Tsertsvadze

series ordinal

5

0 references

publication date

17 October 2007

0 references

published in

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

0 references

cites work

A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

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

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

Bias in clinical intervention research.

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

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

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

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

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

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

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

21 January 2018

Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group

1 reference

stated in

Crossref

reference URL

https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000025

retrieved

7 January 2021

based on heuristic

inferred from DOI database lookup

Identifiers

DOI

10.1002/14651858.MR000025

0 references

(Q24243446)

Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk-of-bias in studies included in a systematic review

Statements

Identifiers

Sitelinks

Wikipedia(0 entries)

Wikibooks(0 entries)

Wikinews(0 entries)

Wikiquote(0 entries)

Wikisource(0 entries)

Wikiversity(0 entries)

Wikivoyage(0 entries)

Wiktionary(0 entries)

Multilingual sites(0 entries)