Cargando…
Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study
BACKGROUND: There is broad recognition of the importance of evidence in informing clinical decisions. When information from all studies included in a systematic review (“review”) does not contribute to a meta-analysis, decision-makers can be frustrated. Our objectives were to use the field of eyes a...
Autores principales: | Saldanha, Ian J., Lindsley, Kristina B., Money, Sarah, Kimmel, Hannah J., Smith, Bryant T., Dickersin, Kay |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32046643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-0898-2 |
Ejemplares similares
-
Risk Stratification in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer
Screening: Intervention Eligibility, Strategy Choice, and
Optimality
por: O’Mahony, James F.
Publicado: (2021) -
Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the MUDS study)
por: Mayo‐Wilson, Evan, et al.
Publicado: (2017) -
Outcomes in Cochrane Systematic Reviews Addressing Four Common Eye Conditions: An Evaluation of Completeness and Comparability
por: Saldanha, Ian J., et al.
Publicado: (2014) -
Differences in Reporting of Analyses in Internal Company Documents Versus Published Trial Reports: Comparisons in Industry-Sponsored Trials in Off-Label Uses of Gabapentin
por: Vedula, S. Swaroop, et al.
Publicado: (2013) -
Development, implementation and evaluation of an online course on evidence-based healthcare for consumers
por: Han, Genie, et al.
Publicado: (2020)