Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies.

[1]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on breast cancer treatment, screening, and quality of life outcomes: A cross-sectional study. , 2021, Journal of cancer policy.

[2]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. , 2021, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[3]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma. , 2020, Journal of glaucoma.

[4]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis , 2020, Sexual medicine.

[5]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering surgical management, or quality of life after surgical management, of osteoarthritis of the knee , 2020, Osteoarthritis and cartilage open.

[6]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis , 2020 .

[7]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Emergency Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials. , 2020, Annals of emergency medicine.

[8]  Jianqun Yu,et al.  Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials , 2020, BJS open.

[9]  A. Basiony,et al.  Difluprednate versus Prednisolone Acetate after Cataract Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2019, BMJ Open.

[10]  Yongqing Xu,et al.  Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures , 2019, Medicine.

[11]  D. Pieper,et al.  A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials , 2019, The Laryngoscope.

[13]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals , 2019, BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.

[14]  M. Khan,et al.  Level and Prevalence of Spin in Published Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trial Reports With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes , 2019, JAMA network open.

[15]  M. Vassar,et al.  Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: A cross‐sectional review , 2019, Clinical obesity.

[16]  M. Vassar,et al.  Presence of 'spin' in the abstracts and titles of anaesthesiology randomised controlled trials. , 2019, British journal of anaesthesia.

[17]  F. Gómez-García,et al.  Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[18]  Qiang Wu,et al.  Comparison of clinical performance between trifocal and bifocal intraocular lenses: A meta-analysis , 2017, PloS one.

[19]  P. Tugwell,et al.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[20]  R. Agha,et al.  Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement , 2017, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[21]  Hossam M. Hammady,et al.  Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[22]  David Moher,et al.  A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[24]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Mark A Burgman,et al.  Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims , 2013, Nature.

[26]  P. Fontelo,et al.  Family nurse practitioner student perception of journal abstract usefulness in clinical decision making: A randomized controlled trial , 2013, Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

[27]  Paul Fontelo,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital , 2012, Evidence-Based Medicine.

[28]  I. Chatziralli,et al.  Risk factors for intraoperative floppy iris syndrome: a meta-analysis. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[29]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[30]  D. Ezra,et al.  Topical anaesthesia alone versus topical anaesthesia with intracameral lidocaine for phacoemulsification , 2007 .

[31]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  M H Ebell,et al.  Family physicians' use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? , 2001, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[33]  D. Elliott,et al.  The evolution of cataract surgery , 2001 .