Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration

10,335 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. (2012, methodology): “instances methods that minimize risk of bias are likely to be reported in the article, and, in practice, most empirical studies have combined the high and unclear categories into a single category in any case [3].”
Global Burden of Oral Conditions in 1990-2010 (2013, methodology): “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011].”
Effectiveness of Self-Compassion Related Therapies: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2018, unknown): “To correct for these correlated comparisons (Higgins and Green 2011), we used a multilevel meta-analytic model (Konstantopoulos 2011; Weisz et al. 2013).”
Effects of expressive writing on depressive symptoms—A meta‐analysis (2018, methodology): “Domains of bias judged by the Cochrane Collaborations’s tool for assessing risk of bias (Higgins & Green, 2011) were not significantly associated with studies’ effect sizes, suggesting that study quality did not have any impact on study outcomes.”
PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews (2014, methodology): “clinical evidence for systematic reviews in evidence based medicine and is endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration [2].”