[GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness].

By A. Rasch, M. Perleth, G. Langer, J. Meerpohl, G. Gartlehner, A. Kaminski-Hartenthaler, Holger J. Schünemann. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 2012

639 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/cdef1fe343b633dfde6c9e90b59a62e07496d35e

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

1. Georgia Salanti
2. A. Chaimani
3. Julian P. T. Higgins
4. D. Caldwell
5. C. Del Giovane

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Georgia Salanti
2. Julian P. T. Higgins
3. A. Chaimani
4. Gerta Rücker
5. van der Werff

In Statistics and Probability

1. A. Chaimani
2. Georgia Salanti
3. Julian P. T. Higgins
4. C. Del Giovane
5. Ian R. White
6. D. Caldwell
7. John P. A. Ioannidis
8. Gerta Rücker

Citations in the corpus

• 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).”
• Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis (2014, methodology): “The GRADE Working Group have addressed the issue of grading for indirect comparisons [5] and have prepared a working paper for network meta-analyses [6].”