Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool:…

By S. Armijo-Olivo, C. Stiles, N. Hagen, P. Biondo, G. Cummings. Journal of Evaluation In Clinical Practice, 2012

1,454 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.

Evaluating the effectiveness of employee assistance programmes: a systematic review (2018, background): “Subsequently, studies are assigned a quality rating of weak (1–1.5), moderate (1.51–2.5), or strong (2.51–3) based on this total score (Armijo-Olivo et al., 2010).”
The Role of Methodological Choices in the Effects of Experimental Exposure to Simulated Natural Landscapes on Human Health and Cognitive Performance: A Systematic Review (2020, background): “These include the use of blinded participants and personnel who play important roles in the administration of treatments and examinations of selection bias (Olivo et al., 2010).”
Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework (2017, background): “Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool [43] (one review: 3%) and United States”
The association between social relationships and depression: a systematic review. (2015, background): “Studies investigating social relationships generally pertain to three major domains: social support, social networks, and social connectedness (Ashida and Heaney, 2008; Barratt et al., 2006; Noone and Stephens, 2014; Ottmann et al., 2006; Stone, 2003).”