Systematic reviews in health care : meta-analysis in context

By M. Egger, George Davey Smith, Douglas G. Altman. 2001

2,122 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4c23c8988a526d57159f5379c06a2f839e2550cb

How researchers see this paper

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

1. F. B. Hu
2. G. Banks
3. Vasanti S. Malik
4. Dag I.K. Sjøberg
5. Tore Dybå
6. W. Willett
7. Sven Kepes
8. Barry M. Popkin

Citations in the corpus

• A method for meta‐analysis of molecular association studies (2005, methodology): “These ORs are assessed separately for heterogeneity using Q statistic, which is de ned as follows [13, 15, 16]:”
• Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic results (2008, background): “Although publication bias is problematic for all types of research, it is particularly problematic for meta-analytic work, since systematic reviewers have claimed that meta-analysis is a more valid means of reviewing research than is a narrative review (e.g., Egger et al. 2000 ). If, however, the ”
• Guidelines for the design and statistical analysis of experiments using laboratory animals. (2002, unknown): “Meta-analysis usually forms only part of a systematic review to identify all relevant studies (Egger et al. 2001).”