Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care

By Evelina Tacconelli. 2010

3,179 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/07798e3bd4698e40d4d539ccdafcbfdc91e25f81

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

1. Mustafa Sarkar
2. T. Curran
3. C. Bain
4. I. Robertson
5. Rajiv Khosla
6. P. Brooks
7. Hyoun K. Kim
8. Rachelle Buchbinder

In Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging

1. Mustafa Sarkar
2. T. Curran
3. C. Bain
4. I. Robertson
5. P. Brooks
6. Hyoun K. Kim
7. Rachelle Buchbinder
8. E. Smith

In Statistics and Probability

1. Mustafa Sarkar
2. T. Curran
3. C. Bain
4. I. Robertson
5. Rajiv Khosla
6. P. Brooks
7. Hyoun K. Kim
8. Rachelle Buchbinder

Citations in the corpus

• Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. (2012, methodology): “To establish face validity of the tool, we (1) examined checklists that were regarded as good quality in previous reviews [12e14]; (2) listed key recommendations from previous reviews of study assessment tools [4,6,12,15]; (3) searched the peerreviewed literature for tools for assessing risk of stud”