[GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency].
By M. Perleth, G. Langer, J. Meerpohl, G. Gartlehner, A. Kaminski-Hartenthaler, Holger J. Schünemann. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 2012
767 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/504190b2af1974898c119a07f13b00162f22eeeb
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
In Statistics and Probability
Citations in the corpus
- GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. (2011, background): “We deal with the issue of subgroup effects in much more detail in a subsequent article in this series [4].”
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies for children with chronic pain. (2014, methodology): “Indirectness describes the population, intervention, comparator, or outcomes that are not of interest (Guyatt et al., 2011d).”
- Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. (2016, background): “Salavati 2011(40) Persian ACL Surgery 57 (18) 25.”
- Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014, unknown): “a) Evaluate the extent of heterogeneity for each direct comparison including at least two studies, following the standard GRADE guidelines [24].”