A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study
Open Access
- 11 April 2016
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 79, 46-54
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.025
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Extended‐release opioids in the management of cancer pain: A systematic review of efficacy and safetyEuropean Journal of Pain Supplements, 2013
- Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosisBMJ Open, 2013
- Convincing Evidence from Controlled and Uncontrolled Studies on the Lipid-Lowering Effect of a StatinPublished by Wiley ,2012
- Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?PLoS Medicine, 2010
- AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional studyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic reviewJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic ReviewsPLoS Medicine, 2007
- Publishing Protocols of Systematic ReviewsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 2002