Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.

By Peter Jüni, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger. British medical journal, 2001

2,907 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ea38cb9102044a6f629664e5de96fdc3503d0e61

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Depression as a Risk Factor for Mortality in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-analysis (2004, methodology): “We did not assess the quality characteristics of each study as recommended for randomized, controlled studies ( 68 ).”
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. (2007, background): “Transparent reporting is also needed to judge whether and how results can be included in systematic reviews (4, 5).”
Korean translation of the CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials (2014, neutral): “한글번역의 대상은 점검표와 흐름 도를 포함한 CONSORT 2010 지침이며 Annals of Internal Medicine에 발표된 판본을 참고하였다 [1].”
Evaluating offending behaviour programmes (2008, background): “However, the methodological quality of RCTs can vary considerably (Juni et al., 2001), which is not surprising given the numerous problems with bias and methodology inherent to this design (Lewis and Warlow, 2004).”
The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015, methodology): “Of them, some are recommended and used, some are used without recommendation, and some are eliminated (8, 26), (32), (37–39, 46, 47, 78).”
How to Write a Systematic Review (2007, background): “The key step in systematic review is quality appraisal of the included studies.(1,3,14,19,22,23,26,28,31,32,35,39,42) Several quality scales and checklists have been developed to assist in this process.”
PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts (2013, positive): “Many tools exist for assessing the overall risk of bias in included studies, including scales, checklists and individual components [23].”
ORIGINAL ARTICLES The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies (2008, neutral): “Transparent reporting is also needed to judge whether and how results can be included in systematic reviews [ 4 ,5].”