Quality of Meta-Analyses for Randomized Trials in the Field of Hypertension: an Updated and Improved Systematic Review

No abstract is available for this paper.

• Publication year

  2017

• Venue

  Current Hypertension Reports

• Publication date

  2017-08-07

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1007/s11906-017-0765-7PMID 28785887
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Basics of meta‐analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity

  2017cited by this paper
• Quality of meta-analyses for randomized trials in the field of hypertension: a systematic review

  2016cited by this paper
• Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited.

  2015cited by this paper
• Systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

  2015cited by this paper
• The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method

  2014cited by this paper
• Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid.

  2014cited by this paper
• Association between analytic strategy and estimates of treatment outcomes in meta-analyses.

  2014cited by this paper
• Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Inconsistent Effects: A Time for Change

  2014cited by this paper
• How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature.

  2014cited by this paper
• [GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency].

  2012cited by this paper
• [GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence: publication bias].

  2012cited by this paper
• GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.

  2011cited by this paper
• GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.

  2011cited by this paper
• GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias).

  2011cited by this paper
• Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases

  2011cited by this paper
• Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting

  2010cited by this paper
• Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

  2010cited by this paper
• Cumulative Meta-Analysis as a Publication Bias Method

  2009cited by this paper
• Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies

  2008cited by this paper
• Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses

  2008cited by this paper
• Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

  2008cited by this paper
• Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies

  2008cited by this paper
• Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials.

  2007cited by this paper
• A practical guide to meta-analysis.

  2006cited by this paper
• Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments

  2006cited by this paper
• Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.

  2006cited by this paper
• In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias.

  2005cited by this paper
• Relative Citation Impact of Various Study Designs in the Health Sciences

  2005cited by this paper
• Cumulative meta–analysis: a new tool for detection of temporal trends and publication bias in ecology

  2004cited by this paper
• Reported Methodologic Quality and Discrepancies between Large and Small Randomized Trials in Meta-Analyses

  2001cited by this paper
• A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines

  2001cited by this paper
• Meta-analysis: methods, strengths, and weaknesses.

  2000cited by this paper
• The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.

  1999cited by this paper
• How the Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence Based Medicine

  1998cited by this paper
• Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

  1996cited by this paper
• Summarizing Evidence: Crusaders for Simplicity@@@Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings

  1991cited by this paper
• An introduction to meta-analysis.

  1989cited by this paper
• The American College of Physicians

  1968cited by this paper
• Meta-analyses : first-rank evidence or second-hand information ?

  year unknowncited by this paper

• Quality of systematic reviews in HIV: The case of clinical outcomes associated with patient medication adherence

  2021cites this paper
• Quality Assessment and Knowledge Discovery for Chinese Systematic Review/Meta-analysis of Hypertension Prevention and Control

  2019cites this paper
• Meta‐analyses and blood pressure goals

  2018cites this paper