Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration

By Julian P. T. Higgins. 2011

17,662 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d60598af7022eabac1854c654aa2f710a1cb3bb7

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Exercise as a Treatment for Depression: A Meta-Analysis Adjusting for Publication Bias (2016, background): “Three authors (FS, JR, BS) assessed studies on the presence of high, low or unclear risk of bias according to the Cochrane Handbook definition (Higgins and Green, 2011).”
Social prescribing: less rhetoric and more reality. A systematic review of the evidence (2017, unknown): “We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality of the randomised controlled trial (RCT).(14) To assess the quality of the before and after evaluations, we applied the quality assessment tool developed by the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute for before– after (pre–post) stud”
COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (2017, methodology): “The term ‘risk of bias’ is in compliance with the Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews of trials and diagnostic studies [10].”
Between-laboratory reproducibility of time-lapse embryo selection using qualitative and quantitative parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “Future multi-centric RCTs comparing quantitative parameter-based embryo selection and qualitative parameter-based deselection are necessary as the TL deselection approach may have been overlooked and underestimated.”
Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: A meta-analysis (2014, methodology): “…was assessed via the I 2 statistic, which is defined as the percentage of the observed variances that was due to real differences in effect sizes (Higgins & Green, 2011; Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003): 2 100% Q df I Q          , where df = k – 1 is the degrees of freedom, k…”
Standalone smartphone apps for mental health—a systematic review and meta-analysis (2019, unknown): “43,44 This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews of the National Institute for Health Research (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero/) under the ID CRD42017076515.”
The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: a meta-analysis (2016, methodology): “In terms of number of effect sizes, Higgins and Green (2011) suggest considering moderator analysis only if there are ten or more studies incorporating the moderators.”