2009 Updated Method Guidelines for Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group

By Andrea Furlan, Victoria Pennick, C. Bombardier, M. V. van Tulder. Spine, 2009

1,565 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Pharmacology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/06c669f0d5c90fa582638d2f0bac03e0207be64e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Pharmacology

1. L. Mokkink
2. Lex M. Bouter
3. HC de Vet
4. C. Terwee
5. R. Ostelo

In Statistics and Probability

1. L. Mokkink
2. C. Terwee
3. HC de Vet
4. Lex M. Bouter
5. Dirk L. Knol
6. Mieke Heyvaert
7. Patrick Onghena
8. B. Maes

Citations in the corpus

• A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2011, neutral): “The guidelines of the Cochrane reviews are the basis of the above assessment strategy.([22])”
• Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist (2011, methodology): “In this systematic review, levels of evidence were used to rate the quality of the instruments, like is done in reviews of randomized clinical trials [13, 14 ].”
• Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential (2011, methodology): “…(5) the data analysis and interpretation stage, and (6) the reporting and discussing of research findings (Cooper 1998; Cooper and Hedges 1994; Furlan et al. 2009; Gelo et al. 2008; Khan et al. 2001; Major and Savin-Baden 2010; Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2005; Oxman and Guyatt 1988; Whittemore and…”