Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey
暂无分享,去创建一个
G. Guyatt | E. Akl | A. Iorio | B. Johnston | M. Briel | R. Mustafa | P. Alonso-Coello | Qi Zhou | R. Vernooij | J. Busse | I. Neumann | R. Brignardello-Petersen | A. Carrasco-Labra | S. Ebrahim | A. Irfan | I. Solá | P. Vandvik | L. Martínez García | K. Tikkinen | Xin Sun | C. Granados | Anggie Ramírez-Morera | A. Selva | A. Sanabria | Oscar E. Zazueta
[1] Gordon H Guyatt,et al. Addressing continuous data measured with different instruments for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[2] G. Guyatt,et al. A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol , 2013, Systematic Reviews.
[3] Xin Sun,et al. Addressing continuous data for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[4] Sally Hopewell,et al. Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study , 2013, BMJ Open.
[5] Matthias Briel,et al. Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers , 2013, PloS one.
[6] Gordon H Guyatt,et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[7] R Brian Haynes,et al. Sensitive Clinical Queries retrieved relevant systematic reviews as well as primary studies: an analytic survey. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[8] G. Guyatt,et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[9] G. Guyatt,et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias). , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[10] D. Moher,et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[11] J. Higgins. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .
[12] Mark van der Laan,et al. Addressing missing data in clinical trials. , 2011, Annals of internal medicine.
[13] D. Moher,et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[14] D. Moher,et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.
[15] Catherine Sherrington,et al. Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[16] Jeremy Grimshaw,et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.
[17] G. Guyatt,et al. LOST to follow-up Information in Trials (LOST-IT): a protocol on the potential impact , 2009, Trials.
[18] Ian R White,et al. Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials , 2008, Clinical trials.
[19] Nicky J Welton,et al. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 2: Hierarchical models , 2008, Statistics in medicine.
[20] Ian R White,et al. Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 1: Two‐stage methods , 2008, Statistics in medicine.
[21] Carrol Gamble,et al. Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.