相似文献
1
AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.
2
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.
Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50.
3
[The systematic review is the foundation of evidence based medicine. One of the most important contributions to clinical medicine of the past decade].
Lakartidningen. 2000 May 31;97(22):2726-8.
4
Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 5;13(4):e1001987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001987. eCollection 2016 Apr.
5
A nephrology guide to reading and using systematic reviews of observational studies.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Oct;30(10):1615-21. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv257. Epub 2015 Jun 24.
6
Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Drug Ther Bull. 2013 Oct;51(10):117-20. doi: 10.1136/dtb.2013.10.0211.
7
Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies?
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Sep 6;7:609. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-609.
8
[Clinical equipoise and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials].
Med Clin (Barc). 2015 Dec 7;145(11):496-8. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2015.04.006. Epub 2015 May 23.
9
Interrater reliability of grading strength of evidence varies with the complexity of the evidence in systematic reviews.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Oct;66(10):1105-1117.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.06.002.
10
A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jun;86:168-175. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.023. Epub 2017 May 6.
引用本文的文献
1
Methodological Standards for Conducting High-Quality Systematic Reviews.
Biology (Basel). 2025 Aug 1;14(8):973. doi: 10.3390/biology14080973.
2
Effectiveness and safety of home-based centre-based exercise programmes for pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Eur Respir Rev. 2025 Sep 3;34(177). doi: 10.1183/16000617.0102-2025. Print 2025 Jul.
3
Does alendronate enhance survival rates in osteoporosis patients? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Sci Prog. 2025 Jul-Sep;108(3):368504251348587. doi: 10.1177/00368504251348587. Epub 2025 Sep 3.
4
Survival of dental implants in irradiated head and neck cancer patients compared to non-irradiated patients: An umbrella review.
PLoS One. 2025 Sep 3;20(9):e0324388. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324388. eCollection 2025.
5
Response rates, survival status and adverse events of placebo in randomized control trials for hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.
World J Hepatol. 2025 Aug 27;17(8):108533. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v17.i8.108533.
6
Intracranial hemorrhage in posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Aug 5;87(9):6023-6032. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003676. eCollection 2025 Sep.
7
Esophageal stenting and endoscopic vacuum therapy for esophageal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Jul 17;87(9):5963-5972. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003525. eCollection 2025 Sep.
8
Comparative efficacy of sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors on lipid profiles in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD): a comprehensive Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2025 Jul 25;87(9):6008-6022. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000003658. eCollection 2025 Sep.
9
Structured Training in Robotic Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review of Educational Models, Methodologies, Existing Gaps and Unmet Needs.
J Abdom Wall Surg. 2025 Aug 18;4:15190. doi: 10.3389/jaws.2025.15190. eCollection 2025.
10
Corticomotor Responses to Experimental, Acute, and Chronic Lower Limb Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Brain Behav. 2025 Sep;15(9):e70838. doi: 10.1002/brb3.70838.
本文引用的文献
1
Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).
BJU Int. 2017 Feb;119(2):193. doi: 10.1111/bju.13754.
2
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919.
3
Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Aug 26;16(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0183-6.
4
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. eCollection 2016 May.
5
Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement.
Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 12;5:58. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0237-1.
6
Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 5;13(4):e1001987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001987. eCollection 2016 Apr.
7
Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):132-40. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055.
8
Dental Students' Use of AMSTAR to Critically Appraise Systematic Reviews.
J Dent Educ. 2015 Sep;79(9):1031-9.
9
Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Aug 13;15:63. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0062-6.
10
ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jan;69:225-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. Epub 2015 Jun 16.
Zotero 插件